NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, all those commies keep arguing that these capitalists, pig-scum CEOs are underpaying us for the work we do. The problem is, they're (the commies) thinking about this all wrong. They're (the CEOs) not paying you for the work you do. You volunteer to help them earn money and as a bonus, they give you a cut of it based on what they feel they can pay you and still make a profit for themselves. If you don't like this, you're going to have to create your own business and pay other people to earn your money for you.

By the way, I don't like some of the socialist mindset that some people seem to have. For instance, I work at a movie theater (part time, I'm a college student). Today (and numerous other days) I had to work with a guy I call "Captain Dipshit" because he sucks at life. Anyway, working with him is more like babysitting, and I get stuff done faster when I have to work by myself. Yet, since I was hired only a month before him and haven't been working there for three months yet so I can't get a raise yet, we both get paid $5.40/hr (it blows, but free movies, eh?). Should I get paid $8.10/hr and he get $2.70/hr when he is working since I'm really doing the work of two people and he isn't doing anything? I mean, he's gotta have the $2.70/hr to put in his bank or whatever (since his parents still pay for everything for him). It's not like he's actually helping the company earn money. Also, since I am just babysitting him, shouldn't his parents buy a pizza for him and I (like a lot of parents do when they hire a babysitter so the babysitter doesn't have to cook)?

Get used to working with morons, you do live in Arkansas. :D

I'm going to college so I can work in an office and not in the service industry. Any morons I will work with will be fire-able morons.

Okay, all those commies keep arguing that these capitalists, pig-scum CEOs are underpaying us for the work we do. The problem is, they're (the commies) thinking about this all wrong. They're (the CEOs) not paying you for the work you do. You volunteer to help them earn money and as a bonus, they give you a cut of it based on what they feel they can pay you and still make a profit for themselves. If you don't like this, you're going to have to create your own business and pay other people to earn your money for you.
Ok here goes. A real twist for you, since you love capitalism.

What would you do if EVERYONE in North America was a TRUE capitalist?

Ok here goes. A real twist for you, since you love capitalism.

What would you do if EVERYONE in North America was a TRUE capitalist?
Capitalize.

Get used to working with morons, you do live in Arkansas. :D
By the way, tone down the flames because that's not even funny.

Capitalize.
How would you be able to CAPITALIZE?

That's a dumb question if you understand capitalism, and since you don't (since you asked that question), I will ask you to understand a system before you choose to dislike it (which you apparantly do).

That's a dumb question if you understand capitalism, and since you don't (since you asked that question), I will ask you to understand a system before you choose to dislike it (which you apparantly do).
How is it a dumb question? It is hypothetical for sure but dumb, no.

How would you capitalize, since you already stated that you want to work in an office?

How is it a dumb question? It is hypothetical for sure but dumb, no.

How would you capitalize, since you already stated that you want to work in an office?
I want to work in an office in this America. In an America of pure capitalism, I might figure something else out, however, just because you're a capitalist doesn't mean you're a CEO (contrary to popular commie belief).

I want to work in an office in this America. In an America of pure capitalism, I might figure something else out, however, just because you're a capitalist doesn't mean you're a CEO (contrary to popular commie belief).
Well if everyone was their OWN business enterprise in the TRUE capitalist society, then you would either have to own your own business or contract yourself out to another business.

If you don't have the capital to start up your own business then you would be relegated to contracting your services out?

Can communists read?

Can communists read?
I don't know can they? I would assume so though?

I don't know can they? I would assume so though?
Can you read? ...or better yet, use logic?

Can you read? ...or better yet, use logic?
Well speaking of dumb questions, what do you think?

Ok here goes. A real twist for you, since you love capitalism.

What would you do if EVERYONE in North America was a TRUE capitalist?


Everyone in north america IS a true capitalist, unless you have a different opinion of what a true capitalist is, and are considering a true capitalist just as bad as a true fascist.

Everyone in north america IS a true capitalist, unless you have a different opinion of what a true capitalist is, and are considering a true capitalist just as bad as a true fascist.
Letila lives in North America. Nuff said.

Everyone in north america IS a true capitalist, unless you have a different opinion of what a true capitalist is, and are considering a true capitalist just as bad as a true fascist.
Everyone in North america is not a true capitalist. People work within the capitalist society but not all are true capitalists, if you go by the defintion of capitalism:

free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit

Well speaking of dumb questions, what do you think?
cap·i·tal·ist
1. A supporter of capitalism.
2. An investor of capital in business, especially one having a major financial interest in an important enterprise.
3. A person of great wealth.
You don't have to own a business to be a capitalist, therefore, America could be entirely capitalistic, however, it wouldn't work because some people, like Captain Dipshit don't know what "work ethic" is and would just rot and starve to death and we're a tad more humane than that.

I'm a capitalist. Does it look like I own a business?

No. That's what the first part of that definition is for.

You don't have to own a business to be a capitalist, therefore, America could be entirely capitalistic, however, it wouldn't work because some people, like Captain Dipshit don't know what "work ethic" is and would just rot and starve to death and we're a tad more humane than that.
So what would you do, if Captain Dipshit was working for you?

So what would you do, if Captain Dipshit was working for you?
If for some reason I was the Manager of the theater I work at tomorrow, I would fire him. There are 18 employees at the theater now. Sixteen of those employees work hard. If I fired him (and made sure every knew he was fired) then the other slacker (who isn't as bad) might get her gears in motion.

In fact, the only reason Cpt. Dipshit got the job is because his dad is friends with the manager. It's probably also the reason he hasn't been fired. That's the part about capitalism I don't like. You get things sometimes because of what family you're born into.

Okay, all those commies keep arguing that these capitalists, pig-scum CEOs are underpaying us for the work we do. The problem is, they're (the commies) thinking about this all wrong. They're (the CEOs) not paying you for the work you do. You volunteer to help them earn money and as a bonus, they give you a cut of it based on what they feel they can pay you and still make a profit for themselves. If you don't like this, you're going to have to create your own business and pay other people to earn your money for you.

oddly enough, you are actually pretty much right. they don't pay you for your work, they pay you to work. your pay is only tangentially related to your labor. but the issue remains - is a system that allows some to use their claim of ownership over the means of production to do this just and does it even make sense economically? the fundamental difference between capitalists and me, is that i hold that labor is entitled to all that it creates, while the capitalists hold that the elite should be rewarded with a good chunk of what labor creates merely for being the elite.

By the way, tone down the flames because that's not even funny.Well maybe not to you, but then you do live in Arkansas. :D :D

If for some reason I was the Manager of the theater I work at tomorrow, I would fire him. There are 18 employees at the theater now. Sixteen of those employees work hard. If I fired him (and made sure every knew he was fired) then the other slacker (who isn't as bad) might get her gears in motion.
So these 16 employees who work hard, do they all do the same amount of work?

Meanwhile, Captain Dipshit is now unemployed and doing less and getting unemployment insurance or welfare?

oddly enough, you are actually pretty much right. they don't pay you for your work, they pay you to work. your pay is only tangentially related to your labor. but the issue remains - is a system that allows some to use their claim of ownership over the means of production to do this just and does it even make sense economically? the fundamental difference between capitalists and me, is that i hold that labor is entitled to all that it creates, while the capitalists hold that the elite should be rewarded with a good chunk of what labor creates merely for being the elite.

yeah, but I'm sure you already know what Opal Isle will say to that last bit...she won't agree that the elite are rewarded for simply being the elite, she'll say they're the elite because through hard slog, they've earned it. Hoo hah. Silly Capitalists.

You don't have to own a business to be a capitalist

whenever discussing capitalism with socialists of any stripe, 'capitalist' means one who owns some of the means of production and distribution and the land that people have to live or work on - particularly those who can "earn" a living purely through that ownership by charging people for its use.

it will almost never mean 'a person who thinks the capitalist system is just' except in so far as the two categories overlap.

Well maybe not to you, but then you do live in Arkansas. :D :D
Have you ever been to Arkansas? If not, shut the hell up. If so, you probably have only been to select parts of it and assumed the whole state is the same.

whenever discussing capitalism with socialists of any stripe, 'capitalist' means one who owns some of the means of production and distribution and the land that people have to live or work on - particularly those who can "earn" a living purely through that ownership by charging people for its use.

it will almost never mean 'a person who thinks the capitalist system is just' except in so far as the two categories overlap.
Now you are arguing with a dictionary...

oddly enough, you are actually pretty much right. they don't pay you for your work, they pay you to work. your pay is only tangentially related to your labor. but the issue remains - is a system that allows some to use their claim of ownership over the means of production to do this just and does it even make sense economically? the fundamental difference between capitalists and me, is that i hold that labor is entitled to all that it creates, while the capitalists hold that the elite should be rewarded with a good chunk of what labor creates merely for being the elite.
Therefore, as people who work in the service industry don't actually produce anything, they deserve no pay.

In fact, the only reason Cpt. Dipshit got the job is because his dad is friends with the manager. It's probably also the reason he hasn't been fired. That's the part about capitalism I don't like. You get things sometimes because of what family you're born into.
Well get used to it, because this behaviour is extremely prevalent in a capitalist society.

yeah, but I'm sure you already know what Opal Isle will say to that last bit...she won't agree that the elite are rewarded for simply being the elite, she'll say they're the elite because through hard slog, they've earned it. Hoo hah. Silly Capitalists.
He. And thanks for flaming me ("Silly Capitalists") based off something I didn't say.

Well get used to it, because this behaviour is extremely prevalent in a capitalist society.
Thanks for not arguing any points.

So these 16 employees who work hard, do they all do the same amount of work?

Meanwhile, Captain Dipshit is now unemployed and doing less and getting unemployment insurance or welfare?
Now you're talking about socialism, which in a North America of only Capitalists, would not exist. Pick one story.

Thanks for not arguing any points.
You have called this thread "Capitalism: A new vantage point.", and personally, it is just the same old, same old......nothing new with what you have brought forward.

Aha! A continuation of failure to argue points.

Now you are arguing with a dictionary...

nah, it's just a technical definition. you get those in academic disciplines like political science and economics. it's also the older definition, btw.

Aha! A continuation of failure to argue points.
How can I argue points? You have brought nothing new forward. You stated that you aspire to work in an office that is presumably "owned" by a true capitalist, and you will earn whatever the "capitalist owner" will pay?

Okay, then I will tell him what would happen if every North American was a business owner.

Extremely quickly, a majority of those people would fail and be forced to become part of the work force. Additionally, a lot of those business owners might decide it would be best for them to consolidate and become co-owners. You don't necessarily have to have a work force to earn a profit, however in capitalism, you hire a team to earn you money by doing labor for you which you sell to the public because the public needs it, your workers need money to live, and you need money to live. The extra money you get can be explained by the fact that you had the ability to make the right decisions to actually earn that profit. The workers wouldn't have earned their living had you not gave them a job, would they? Your profit is their gift to you for helping them out.

How can I argue points? You have brought nothing new forward. You stated that you aspire to work in an office that is presumably "owned" by a true capitalist, and you will earn whatever the "capitalist owner" will pay?
Eh, no. I really would like to get into working for myself, however, I wish the place I worked at now was owned and operated by a true capitalist. Thanks for reading though.

Oh go on, Opal Isle, lighten up- you ARE being silly. It's not as though there's any other economic model that's lurking in your jam cupboard, is there? No communist plot to redistribute wealth hiding under bed? Your system won, your nation won the cold war. You are the top dog. Why are you acting like you're under siege?

Damnit I wrote a nice long post, then Jolt decided to be stupid and logged me out, lost it. Curses, must write posts in Word...

It is true that in capitalism you volunteer to work for somebody else, make them money and get a small share. The problem is that you are forced to ‘volunteer’ or else you make no money and die or live off of charity (which wouldn't exist, because people in a pure Capitalism want all the money they can get). You can make your own small business, but if it is successful, you’ll be bought by a larger company that wants more ‘volunteers’.

Your co-worker is a lazy slob. It’s only because of people like him that socialism and communism are flawed concepts. Both require a collective greed that is inspired by conditions. In Communism everyone needs to work as hard as possible so that their earnings go up, everyone working hard benefits everyone and in Communism there is no one to supress the workers; what money they create flows back into their pockets through services etc. If all the workers work hard, all the workers gain money. The amount of money lost between how much money is generated by the workers and how much money is returned to the workers, is 0. Socialism is the same. Contrary to in Capitalism, where how hard you work can have no effect on your wage even if everyone works hard. In Capitalism every person is out to make as much capital as they can for themselves. If everyone in a company works extra hard, their CEO can simply horde all the money they make and leave their wages basically the same as if they were working normally.

Feel free to critiscize or find misconceptions on Capitalism I may have made, it's nearly midnight so this isn't all that well written.

Damnit I wrote a nice long post, then Jolt decided to be stupid and logged me out, lost it. Curses, must write posts in Word...

It is true that in capitalism you volunteer to work for somebody else, make them money and get a small share. The problem is that you are forced to ‘volunteer’ or else you make no money and die or live off of charitywrong (which wouldn't exist, because people in a pure Capitalism want all the money they can get). wrong You can make your own small business, but if it is successful, you’ll be bought by a larger company that wants more ‘volunteers’.wrong

Your co-worker is a lazy slob. It’s only because of people like him that socialism and communism are flawed concepts. Both require a collective greed that is inspired by conditions. In Communism everyone needs to work as hard as possible so that their earnings go up, everyone working hard benefits everyone and in Communism there is no one to supress the workers; what money they create flows back into their pockets through services etc. If all the workers work hard, all the workers gain money. The amount of money lost between how much money is generated by the workers and how much money is returned to the workers, is 0. Socialism is the same. correctContrary to in Capitalism, where how hard you work can have no effect on your wage even if everyone works hard.wrong In Capitalism every person is out to make as much capital as they can for themselves. If everyone in a company works extra hard, their CEO can simply horde all the money they make and leave their wages basically the same as if they were working normally.since you said "can" instead of "does," correct

Feel free to critiscize or find misconceptions on Capitalism I may have made, it's nearly midnight so this isn't all that well written.
Done.

Therefore, as people who work in the service industry don't actually produce anything, they deserve no pay.

some amount of service sector work produces value - stuff has got to get distributed and maintained somehow. the general problem is one of determining exactly how much value any one particular individual is to collective projects - thus socialist arguments point to collective ownership and various systems of equitable distribution as a better solution than distribution based on economic power (which is based on ownership; which is, at it's base, an entrenched elite maintaining its position of privilege through institutionalized force).

Okay, then I will tell him what would happen if every North American was a business owner.

Extremely quickly, a majority of those people would fail and be forced to become part of the work force. Additionally, a lot of those business owners might decide it would be best for them to consolidate and become co-owners. You don't necessarily have to have a work force to earn a profit, however in capitalism, you hire a team to earn you money by doing labor for you which you sell to the public because the public needs it, your workers need money to live, and you need money to live. The extra money you get can be explained by the fact that you had the ability to make the right decisions to actually earn that profit. The workers wouldn't have earned their living had you not gave them a job, would they? Your profit is their gift to you for helping them out.
Sounds like you have a bit of socialism sneaking in there?

BTW, if you don't have a "work force", you don't stand to make a lot of money.

Well get used to it, because this behaviour is extremely prevalent in a capitalist society.

Just as it is prevalent in all communist nations. Sons of Communist Party officials in Russia were often of great influence, and were leaders simply by joining the communist party with their fathers. In theory communism is the best system of government, but in reality, capitalism is a far better choice...certainly not perfect, but in practice it works much better than communism.

some amount of service sector work produces value - stuff has got to get distributed and maintained somehow. the general problem is one of determining exactly how much value any one particular individual is to collective projects - thus socialist arguments point to collective ownership and various systems of equitable distribution as a better solution than distribution based on economic power (which is based on ownership; which is, at it's base, an entrenched elite maintaining its position of privilege through institutionalized force).
Exactly.

Have you ever been to Arkansas? If not, shut the hell up. If so, you probably have only been to select parts of it and assumed the whole state is the same. :cool: Looks like I found the 'over react' button. :D :D :D

BTW, if you don't have a "work force", you don't stand to make a lot of money.
You're right. Which is why the profits start out slow in the beginning. Everyone does their own work (or doesn't do their own work and fails) until the failed businesses come in need of money. At this point, you have a work force, and since you can now produce more, your profits begin to increase. You deserve the higher income because it was your business venture that was successful and outlasted the other men's business ventures.
BTW, where is the socialism you're talking about?

:cool: Looks like I found the 'over react' button. :D :D :D
No, looks like you found your own Dumbass mode. You're worse than a lot of the Arkansans I know.

Damnit I wrote a nice long post, then Jolt decided to be stupid and logged me out, lost it. Curses, must write posts in Word...

It is true that in capitalism you volunteer to work for somebody else, make them money and get a small share. The problem is that you are forced to ‘volunteer’ or else you make no money and die or live off of charity (which wouldn't exist, because people in a pure Capitalism want all the money they can get). You can make your own small business, but if it is successful, you’ll be bought by a larger company that wants more ‘volunteers’.

Your co-worker is a lazy slob. It’s only because of people like him that socialism and communism are flawed concepts. Both require a collective greed that is inspired by conditions. In Communism everyone needs to work as hard as possible so that their earnings go up, everyone working hard benefits everyone and in Communism there is no one to supress the workers; what money they create flows back into their pockets through services etc. If all the workers work hard, all the workers gain money. The amount of money lost between how much money is generated by the workers and how much money is returned to the workers, is 0. Socialism is the same. Contrary to in Capitalism, where how hard you work can have no effect on your wage even if everyone works hard. In Capitalism every person is out to make as much capital as they can for themselves. If everyone in a company works extra hard, their CEO can simply horde all the money they make and leave their wages basically the same as if they were working normally.

Feel free to critiscize or find misconceptions on Capitalism I may have made, it's nearly midnight so this isn't all that well written.

I cant say i really disagree with any of your points, but you fail to realize other points. In a capitalist society you do as good as your motivated to do. In other words if you want to work for someone, and not be an owner, you have that choice and deal with those repurcussions.In fact if your a good employee the owners will generally give you as much as they can because you then become an assett to the company.(this happens much more in small businesses then corporations). In the end if your a good worker have a great resume good college etc... employers are competing for you!, which in teh end is the best thing because this allows you to get the best thing out there.The beauty of capitalism is the fact that you have the choice to become an owner, and start something bigger if you want, but you dont have to. Capitalism is about the freedom to choose what to do, what to spend your money on, and where to work.
Not all business owners are greedy capitalist pigs.

In the end if you own land or stock, you have become a capitalist. Its nto necessarily owning a business that leads you there.

No, looks like you found your own Dumbass mode. You're worse than a lot of the Arkansans I know.Yup, definately the 'over react' button. :D :D :D :D

Just as it is prevalent in all communist nations. Sons of Communist Party officials in Russia were often of great influence, and were leaders simply by joining the communist party with their fathers. In theory communism is the best system of government, but in reality, capitalism is a far better choice...certainly not perfect, but in practice it works much better than communism.
The real problem is that too much wealth is concentrated in the hands of the "elite" few. If this persists too long, then you will see anarchy or revolution of some sort.

Okay, then I will tell him what would happen if every North American was a business owner.

Extremely quickly, a majority of those people would fail and be forced to become part of the work force.

follow this thought through and you'll be well on your way to being a socialist.

Yea...heh, if I don't feel like I'm getting paid enough, I just go talk to the manager and tell him that I'm thinking about putting in my two week notice. If he feels that the extra change per hour he spares me is worth keeping me around, then I'll get a raise, if not, I can go find a better job. And you know why they don't mind paying harder workers more? Because they produce a better profit. Here is what my job is: I work as a concession/usher at the movie theater. Part of being an usher is making sure the whole building is clean and making sure there are no problems. If this is done, people enjoy themselves and realize that this particular theater is better than the other so this is the first place they come to see their movie, thus earning the theater more customers, which means more profit. Also, in concession, if I can move people through my line faster and also sell more stuff (because we upsale, it's kind of like asking "Do you want fries with that?"), then I'm also making the company more profit, thus they can afford to pay me more. If they don't feel that they can pay me more despite my earning them more profit and it bothers me, I quit and find a new job.

Hee hee hee this is good shit after all...

follow this thought through and you'll be well on your way to being a socialist.


Its possible to have everyone as business owners and still do good, by subcontracting certain things to certain people. Or becoming an independant contractor.
Fact is PEOPLE would never allow this, because altho everyone is created equal, they certainly dont behave equally, and dont have equal work ethics, which lead them to become failures.

follow this thought through and you'll be well on your way to being a socialist.
Because capitalists are heartless like all commies want to think. If capitalists were indeed heartless, this situation would stay at capitalism.

Who's on first?

+1

Because capitalists are heartless like all commies want to think. If capitalists were indeed heartless, this situation would stay at capitalism.

heartlessness has nothing to do with it. the point is that it is utterly impossible for everyone to make a living purely through ownership. it cannot be done. somebody has to actually do things. however, capitalism allows a tiny minority of people to live off the work of others, while simultaneously forcing the vast majority of people to work for them in order to survive.

+1
Capitalism will eventually fail because it is totally profit oriented. If a company can't make enough money with the workforce they have, they start looking to "outsource" the work and that is how "sweatshops" are created around the world.

With too much emphasis on profit, companies continue to look for ways to improve productivity, and/or cut costs. This results in less jobs available, more unemployment and more poverty.

Currently, the US is technically the richest country in the world, yet 12% of the populace live in poverty. One in 5 children live in poverty, and these are the failings of the capitalist society.

however, capitalism allows a tiny minority of people to live off the work of others, while simultaneously forcing the vast majority of people to work for them in order to survive.

Sure you're not talking about communism? HAHAHAHAHAHA

+1So that's how someone from Arkansas gets a 3K post count.

Sure you're not talking about communism? HAHAHAHAHAHA

hey, it also adequately describes state capitalism as practiced by the so-called communist countries. hell, it also describes one part of fuedalism. and really it describes almost any class society - at least in the most general sense.

Capitalism will eventually fail because it is totally profit oriented. If a company can't make enough money with the workforce they have, they start looking to "outsource" the work and that is how "sweatshops" are created around the world.

With too much emphasis on profit, companies continue to look for ways to improve productivity, and/or cut costs. This results in less jobs available, more unemployment and more poverty.

Currently, the US is technically the richest country in the world, yet 12% of the populace live in poverty. One in 5 children live in poverty, and these are the failings of the capitalist society.

That's not so much the failings of a capitalist system as it is the failings of a few of the greedy elite, although I would tend to agree. The problem is, we don't have CEOs who will share the wealth they have for the betterment of mankind. Rather than pass profits onto your Swiss bank account, you should pass it to your employees, tell them to use it to save for a rainy day. Or give your employees better benefits for them and their families. Donate to worthwhile charities, etc. The problem is, there's no one who's done this.

Capitalism will eventually fail because it is totally profit oriented. If a company can't make enough money with the workforce they have, they start looking to "outsource" the work and that is how "sweatshops" are created around the world.

Wow... I've heard grade-schoolers come up with better economic theories than that.

Currently, the US is technically the richest country in the world, yet 12% of the populace live in poverty. One in 5 children live in poverty, and these are the failings of the capitalist society.

Ignoring the fact that even the poor Americans live better and have more disposable income than socialist slaves, it is not the government's job to forcibly redistribute property.

Capitalism will eventually fail because it is totally profit oriented. If a company can't make enough money with the workforce they have, they start looking to "outsource" the work and that is how "sweatshops" are created around the world.

With too much emphasis on profit, companies continue to look for ways to improve productivity, and/or cut costs. This results in less jobs available, more unemployment and more poverty.

Currently, the US is technically the richest country in the world, yet 12% of the populace live in poverty. One in 5 children live in poverty, and these are the failings of the capitalist society.

Honestly im more into a version of capitalism with more government control ( labor conditions, be earning at least the cost of living in the country etc...) In other words i want government to be sort of a check or balance system with these corporations, but that only works if the auditors are strictly non partisan type of people, like the IRS.

Capitalism will eventually fail because it is totally profit oriented.

I think if it fails it'll be because there just aren't enough resources to sustain it. In North America we're becoming conjoined societies of people all selling useless crap to each other. Too much is never enough. What'll happen when the vast majority of people in the world are all doing the same thing, gobbling up resources vital for the future, and making disposable, worthless consumer crapola out of them?

I think if it fails it'll be because there just aren't enough resources to sustain it.

If the "crap" is so useless, no one would buy it.

Honestly im more into a version of capitalism with more government control ( labor conditions, be earning at least the cost of living in the country etc...) In other words i want government to be sort of a check or balance system with these corporations, but that only works if the auditors are strictly non partisan type of people, like the IRS.
This approach certainly makes more sense, and there certainly is room for improvements in the current system.

I think if it fails it'll be because there just aren't enough resources to sustain it. In North America we're becoming conjoined societies of people all selling useless crap to each other. Too much is never enough. What'll happen when the vast majority of people in the world are all doing the same thing, gobbling up resources vital for the future, and making disposable, worthless consumer crapola out of them?
This is definitely the other side of the coin and certainly relevant to the discussion. For example, lets suppose there was no more oil as of tomorrow. Then what? Chaos!!

Wow... I've heard grade-schoolers come up with better economic theories than that.



Ignoring the fact that even the poor Americans live better and have more disposable income than socialist slaves, it is not the government's job to forcibly redistribute property.
Thanks for playing. :eek:

be earning at least the cost of living in the country etc

Sounds suspiciously like "living wage"... a proven way to induce massive unemployment.

Pan-Arab, people buy useless crap all the time. When you buy detergent, you're buying not just suds, but the plastic container it comes in. Your cel phone might be 'useful' to you now, but in a year or two, there'll be one you'll prefer. The LPs that you bought and then replaced with tapes, CDs, DATs and eventually a bigger, better computer to store .mp3s on. Ballpoint pens that run dry after a week or two. Magazines. The latest fashions, which you wouldn't be caught dead in twelve months from now. Ad nauseum.

Not to mention the stuff that doesn't sell. What happens to that?

I don't think capitalism can possibly be sustained, unless we can think of new innovative ways to make actual use of all the sheer megatonnage of junk production we're basing our joint economies on.

Fair enough. Name one resource we're running dangerously low on.

Pan-Arab, people buy useless crap all the time. When you buy detergent, you're buying not just suds, but the plastic container it comes in. Your cel phone might be 'useful' to you now, but in a year or two, there'll be one you'll prefer. The LPs that you bought and then replaced with tapes, CDs, DATs and eventually a bigger, better computer to store .mp3s on. Ballpoint pens that run dry after a week or two. Magazines. The latest fashions, which you wouldn't be caught dead in twelve months from now. Ad nauseum.

Not to mention the stuff that doesn't sell. What happens to that?

I don't think capitalism can possibly be sustained, unless we can think of new innovative ways to make actual use of all the sheer megatonnage of junk production we're basing our joint economies on.

Fresh water.




Over to you.

I recall reading some alarmist UN garbage a while back about the fresh water emergency and one of my professors savaging the report, saying that it completely ignores technology's role in water purification. Good stuff.

Fresh water.




Over to you.

Fresh water.




Over to you.
Don't forget oil? Trees as well.

HAHAHA. There's enough oil under the Rockies to last the world another couple of centuries, at least. As for trees, they grow back. Duh.

Don't forget oil? Trees as well.

Sounds suspiciously like "living wage"... a proven way to induce massive unemployment.


Well one way to do it is have living wage computed independantly by 2 or 3 different sources so theres a median of sorts, secondly increase this every year by the rate of inflation and your set.
Just make sure living wage, isnt the Wage everyone gets, which is where government would come into play, to make sure that corporations arent just paying people the bare minimums across the line.

HAHAHA. There's enough oil under the Rockies to last the world another couple of centuries, at least. As for trees, they grow back. Duh.
You seem to have all the answers?

Never heard of "peak oil" yet?

Never heard about the rate of deforestation worldwide?

Do some research then you will have a better answer.

The best part about the whole living wage absurdity is that the vast majority of wage earners in the US don't work anywhere close to that income level. All minimum wage earners are either high school kids or totally unskilled workers, and most of them move up within a year or two. A living wage would put them all out of work... more people to suck on the government teat.

Well one way to do it is have living wage computed independantly by 2 or 3 different sources so theres a median of sorts, secondly increase this every year by the rate of inflation and your set.
Just make sure living wage, isnt the Wage everyone gets, which is where government would come into play, to make sure that corporations arent just paying people the bare minimums across the line.

How do you purify water, then, Mr. Pan-Arab-I-Don't-Pay-Attention-To-The-UN-Israel? Walk on it?

OMG! The peak oil theory has been so thoroughly debunked by scientists its somewhat of a bad joke in the academic community... we used to laugh it up in the graduate energy seminars about how some people will believe anything! :)

Deforestation is so overblown... I agree some poorer countries need to learn about the right way to harvest timber but the "Save the Forest" hippies really need to calm the fuck down and get a job.

You seem to have all the answers?

Never heard of "peak oil" yet?

Never heard about the rate of deforestation worldwide?

Do some research then you will have a better answer.

The best part about the whole living wage absurdity is that the vast majority of wage earners in the US don't work anywhere close to that income level. All minimum wage earners are either high school kids or totally unskilled workers, and most of them move up within a year or two. A living wage would put them all out of work... more people to suck on the government teat.

Minimum wage is already like a living wage, except it got looked at by the wrong people, cuz people simply dont make enough that way.

raising the minimum wage would increase costs, further pushing up the acceptable minimum wage.

One thing it does is provides a floor or bottom. Which otherwise would not be there.

So what you do is this. You implement a living wage on low end jobs to people who claim themselves as independant in their taxes. If they are dependant then they dont need to make the living wage. they just need to make a minimum hourly wage.

Ah, the wonders of science and engineering.

How do you purify water, then, Mr. Pan-Arab-I-Don't-Pay-Attention-To-The-UN-Israel? Walk on it?

OMG! The peak oil theory has been so thoroughly debunked by scientists its somewhat of a bad joke in the academic community... we used to laugh it up in the graduate energy seminars about how some people will believe anything! :)

Deforestation is so overblown... I agree some poorer countries need to learn about the right way to harvest timber but the "Save the Forest" hippies really need to calm the fuck down and get a job.
Again, thanks for playing. You obviously have much to learn. :eek:

It isn't just hippies who want more trees, buddy. You've got a lot of preconceived notions to work out of your system. I hope we don't have to suffer for your notions of how our biome works. But i'm realistic enough to know that we will.

Guess my Cornell professors were a bunch of hacks because they tell me something different than what you're saying. AHAHAHAHA.

Again, thanks for playing. You obviously have much to learn. :eek:

Ah, the wonders of science and engineering.

Yes, indeed? Such as-? (Drum roll, please)

Cornell? Ahh, no wonder, then...

Yeah, the liberal arts profs were a bunch of assholes. The engineering faculty was good though.

Cornell? Ahh, no wonder, then...

I'm still awaiting your engineering solution to water purification, o enlightened one. Wilt thou come down from thy mountain, amongst we mortal men and share in your godlike wisdom?

Desalination for one... it's electrically expensive but if things go well that won't be a problem any more.

Too bad I'm not a civvie or I'd be able to give much better and more recent solutions.

I'm still awaiting your engineering solution to water purification, o enlightened one. Wilt thou come down from thy mountain, amongst we mortal men and share in your godlike wisdom?

Mmm, yeah. Right. Thank-you, drive through, sir...


Terminal fool.

QUOTE=Opal Isle]Can communists read?[/QUOTE]

Now just a minute.

I'm a free marketeer (I disdain the term capitalism since it was coined by the left-wing), but I respect the feats of past communists and socialists. They used to come up with good ideas, and some of their old challenges to free markets are still things for us who support the system to think about and find solutions. Their challenge to income distribution is still right on target even after 200 years of "capitalism". Syndicates were also a solution to the problem of free-market inequlibriums due to the lack of bargaining power by the labor force. Some things have to be provided by the state or regulated, the market cannot bring the best solution always.

Now compare these old adversaries (Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa of Louxembourg, Bujarin, just to name a few) to the current state of "the left". Antiglobalization, antindustralization, and other ideas that old communists used to embrace as neccesary for the "world revolution"... IMO most nowadays are just romantics, not true communists or socialists as it used to be understood.

The problem is that we need a competent "left" in order to not become complacent, and I have yet to see the left-wing thinker who raises to challenge the service-based, free-market, IT-driven economy.

There is no new vantage point here. There is nothing new about this entire thread.

The reason why I don't like communism is because it just seems that under communism's economic conditions, the economy would stagnate

oddly enough, you are actually pretty much right. they don't pay you for your work, they pay you to work. your pay is only tangentially related to your labor. but the issue remains - is a system that allows some to use their claim of ownership over the means of production to do this just and does it even make sense economically?
Yes.

the fundamental difference between capitalists and me, is that i hold that labor is entitled to all that it creates, while the capitalists hold that the elite should be rewarded with a good chunk of what labor creates merely for being the elite.
Nah, that's not what capitalists hold. Try again.

some amount of service sector work produces value - stuff has got to get distributed and maintained somehow. the general problem is one of determining exactly how much value any one particular individual is to collective projects - thus socialist arguments point to collective ownership and various systems of equitable distribution as a better solution than distribution based on economic power (which is based on ownership; which is, at it's base, an entrenched elite maintaining its position of privilege through institutionalized force).
No it's not. Try again.

Hint: if you don't want to be gainsaid, then support your claims.

heartlessness has nothing to do with it. the point is that it is utterly impossible for everyone to make a living purely through ownership. it cannot be done. somebody has to actually do things. however, capitalism allows a tiny minority of people to live off the work of others, while simultaneously forcing the vast majority of people to work for them in order to survive.
It does nothing of the sort.

Hint: support your claims with more than Marxist rhetoric.

Fresh water.

We're not running low on that. Try again.

Okay, all those commies keep arguing that these capitalists, pig-scum CEOs are underpaying us for the work we do. The problem is, they're (the commies) thinking about this all wrong. They're (the CEOs) not paying you for the work you do. You volunteer to help them earn money and as a bonus, they give you a cut of it based on what they feel they can pay you and still make a profit for themselves. If you don't like this, you're going to have to create your own business and pay other people to earn your money for you.

Somehow that doesn't make it seem any better...
I'm not a commie either, I think all current systems (capitalism, communism, democracy and so on) are only around until someone thinks of a better one.

By the way, I don't like some of the socialist mindset that some people seem to have. For instance, I work at a movie theater (part time, I'm a college student). Today (and numerous other days) I had to work with a guy I call "Captain Dipshit" because he sucks at life. Anyway, working with him is more like babysitting, and I get stuff done faster when I have to work by myself. Yet, since I was hired only a month before him and haven't been working there for three months yet so I can't get a raise yet, we both get paid $5.40/hr (it blows, but free movies, eh?). Should I get paid $8.10/hr and he get $2.70/hr when he is working since I'm really doing the work of two people and he isn't doing anything? I mean, he's gotta have the $2.70/hr to put in his bank or whatever (since his parents still pay for everything for him). It's not like he's actually helping the company earn money. Also, since I am just babysitting him, shouldn't his parents buy a pizza for him and I (like a lot of parents do when they hire a babysitter so the babysitter doesn't have to cook)?

You shouldn't get paid more for taking on the work load of another without first consulting your employer, but the worker who is ineffective should be fired because he is not providing the business with $5.4 worth of work each hour. Always keep in mind that a companies first priority is profit and that all its actions are based around generating the greatest profit.

This isn't just for you, I'm speaking in general, in case you thought I was strange for saying much of the same thing you say.

We're not running low on that. Try again.

Who's "we"?

Who's "we"?
Humans in general.

I'm not even going to bother explaining what's wrong with the first argument in the topic, suffice to say that everything that has value only has it because workers made it (except for natural resources, which are in an of themselves useless until someone does something to make them productive. A mine is useless until someone mines it). CEOs, on the other hand, don't work 100 times harder than workers, yet get paid 100+ times more than the lowest paid workers.

In other words, who contributed more to the value of a product: The people who made the leather and stitched it together to make the shoes or the people who own the leather and shoe factories?

Always keep in mind that a companies first priority is profit and that all its actions are based around generating the greatest profit.


Why do people keep saying that? Company is not sentient in any way. Company is human beings, sometimes even just one, and they have varied priorities, and usually profit is mean rather than end. Maybe except some superbig corporations which have so dispersed ownership that managing structure practically operates with someone's else money...

But that situation was example when profit is not top priority, the noneffective employee works because of personal request, even if he creates a loss for the company.

I'm not even going to bother explaining what's wrong with the first argument in the topic, suffice to say that everything that has value only has it because workers made it
Things have value because of people's subjective judgements.

(except for natural resources, which are in an of themselves useless until someone does something to make them productive. A mine is useless until someone mines it).
But the mine wouldn't exist without the land.

CEOs, on the other hand, don't work 100 times harder than workers, yet get paid 100+ times more than the lowest paid workers.
You always bring that up...as if it means something. Which, of course, it doesn't.

In other words, who contributed more to the value of a product: The people who made the leather and stitched it together to make the shoes or the people who own the leather and shoe factories?
Why do you persist in using the refuted-to-death labor theory of value?

wrong
wrong
wrong
correct
since you said "can" instead of "does," correct
wrong
Done.
It would be nice if you would correct my errors, so I don't make them in the future. It would also improve your image, stating I am wrong without a reason makes you a fool.

TrpnOut, you're right. But some parts of it are universal through all three economic systems. You work as hard as you are motivated to in every system. The only difference is that in a working Communism and Socialism everyone is motivated to work their hardest and their labours flow back into their pockets. In Capitalism you can be motivated and work hard, but because revenues are not directly reimbersed to workers equally, most of the time the CEO hordes it and barely raises your pay. Yes you are right that in small businesses workers are more valued, so this doesn't occur as often or as severly.

In Communism you have the choice as to where to work and what to spend your money on. The only difference is that you can't start your own business.

Things have value because of people's subjective judgements.

True, but without the labor of the workers, no product would exist.

But the mine wouldn't exist without the land.

And it is the workers, not the capitalists that make the mine useful.

You always bring that up...as if it means something. Which, of course, it doesn't.

It means a lot. The capitalists benefit from the workers, who do the real work.

Why do you persist in using the refuted-to-death labor theory of value?

I don't. I recognize that value is subjective, but at the same time cannot exist without someone to make it.

Things have value because of people's subjective judgements.
True, but without the labor of the workers, no product would exist.
Without the "capitalist", no product would exist, either.


But the mine wouldn't exist without the land.
And it is the workers, not the capitalists that make the mine useful.
Nope. It's both.


You always bring that up...as if it means something. Which, of course, it doesn't.
It means a lot.
No, it doesn't.

The capitalists benefit from the workers, who do the real work.
Ah yes, the Letila No True Scotsman that only manual labor is real work.


Why do you persist in using the refuted-to-death labor theory of value?
I don't.
Yes, you do.

I recognize that value is subjective, but at the same time cannot exist without someone to make it.
And this then means that...capitalists exploit the workers, right? LTV, dumbshit.

Without the "capitalist", no product would exist, either.

How? What do the capitalists do? Allow the means of production to be operated? That's a far cry from actually operating them.

Nope. It's both.

The capitalists don't have to do anything to benefit other than own the mine. It is the workers that actually make something useful come out of the mine.

Ah yes, the Letila No True Scotsman that only manual labor is real work.

I never said that. Many capitalists don't have to do any word if they don't want to. Hense inheritance.

Yes, you do.

And this then means that...capitalists exploit the workers, right? LTV, dumbshit.

I don't see the problem with the theory. If that is LTV, it seems to work very well to me.

Without the "capitalist", no product would exist, either.
How?
Thinking up the product. Risking their capital on it.


Nope. It's both.
The capitalists don't have to do anything to benefit other than own the mine.
Really? Don't they have to risk something for it?


Ah yes, the Letila No True Scotsman that only manual labor is real work.
I never said that.
So what. It's what you imply every time you say that capitalists "never do any real work."


Yes, you do.

And this then means that...capitalists exploit the workers, right? LTV, dumbshit.
I don't see the problem with the theory.
You: claim that value is subjective, right?
Then
You: claim that workers are exploited by the capitalists by making a profit
Which means: value is objective and absolute.

See the problem?

Thinking up the product. Risking their capital on it.

Not all capitalists have to think up a product and many of the products they have thought up aren't that great. There's no reason a group of workers can't think up an idea.

Really? Don't they have to risk something for it?

It depends on how you define risk. If by risk, you mean that they lose money, then yes. If by risk, you mean that they risk life and limb, then no. Workers take a risk, too. If the company fails, the workers are out of a job and must find one quickly to survive. The capitalist, unless they spent all their money on it, can always try again or at the very least has longer to find a job.

So what. It's what you imply every time you say that capitalists "never do any real work."

They sometimes do work, but rarely to the same extent that a sweatshop worker does, and yet get paid

You: claim that value is subjective, right?
Then
You: claim that workers are exploited by the capitalists by making a profit
Which means: value is objective and absolute.

See the problem?

Value is a cultural concept. It only exists because we all agree that it exists. Our idea of what something is worth is generally connected to the amount of labor, though. Something that takes a lot of effort to find or make (diamonds, a car) is more valuable than something that requires little effort (dirt, bread).

Thus, value is both subjective and based on labor. It isn't just exploitation that anarchists oppose, though. What anarchists really dislike is the boring, alienating, authoritarian working conditions in capitalism, and according to some anarchists (particularly primitivists), all advanced societies.

Thinking up the product. Risking their capital on it.
Not all capitalists have to think up a product and many of the products they have thought up aren't that great.
To whom?

There's no reason a group of workers can't think up an idea.
Then they'll be the capitalists....


Really? Don't they have to risk something for it?
It depends on how you define risk.
No, it doesn't.


So what. It's what you imply every time you say that capitalists "never do any real work."
They sometimes do work, but rarely to the same extent that a sweatshop worker does, and yet get paid
Meaning: "work" and "labor" mean physical labor only. Thank you for continuing your NTS.


You: claim that value is subjective, right?
Then
You: claim that workers are exploited by the capitalists by making a profit
Which means: value is objective and absolute.

See the problem?
Value is a cultural concept.
No--it's an individual concept. You deny that the individual exists, though.

It only exists because we all agree that it exists.
No, it exists because each person has desires.

Our idea of what something is worth is generally connected to the amount of labor, though.
No it's not.

Something that takes a lot of effort to find or make (diamonds, a car) is more valuable than something that requires little effort (dirt, bread).
MONETARILY valuable. There YOU go thinking value = money.

Thus, value is both subjective and based on labor.
Actually, value isn't based on labor.

It isn't just exploitation that anarchists oppose, though. What anarchists really dislike is the boring, alienating, authoritarian working conditions in capitalism,
No such conditions exist.

Value isn't based on labor, but what you are charged is partially based on labor. Value is based on supply and demand.

Then they'll be the capitalists....

No, there's no division between owners and workers that would make them capitalists.

Meaning: "work" and "labor" mean physical labor only. Thank you for continuing your NTS.

Simply owning machines is not work. Work means actually designing, building, or transporting something. I don't know of many capitalists who not only design, build, or transport their products, but do it with hundreds of times the intensity of the average worker.

No--it's an individual concept. You deny that the individual exists, though.

I wouldn't make accusations like that, given that you would prefer the average person to operate machines to produce products they receive only a small part of.

No, it exists because each person has desires.

MONETARILY valuable. There YOU go thinking value = money.

If value doesn't equal money and is different for every person, why do we bother with money? It seems like an unnecessary idea. We could save time and resources if we didn't bother making money.

No such conditions exist.

Have you ever heard of division of labor? Sweatshops?

So...from what I understand from skimming Letila's absurdities, if we ever got to a point in which no one did any work because everything was automated, everyone would deserve to die and starve because they're not doing any work.

By the way, money is meant for exchange purposes. It's a lot easier to trade your feild of corn all out for cash (which is accepted everywhere, not everyone needs corn), and then take the cash and trade it for goods and services you actually need. And as far as the waste of currency, there are lots of talks about going entirely plastic. You just earn and expend credits from a charge which means we wouldn't need to print any more money.

Then they'll be the capitalists
No, there's no division between owners and workers that would make them capitalists.
They would own the means of production, right?


Meaning: "work" and "labor" mean physical labor only. Thank you for continuing your NTS.
Simply owning machines is not work. Work means actually designing, building, or transporting something.
So "work" = "physical labor". Thank your for your NTS.

I don't know of many capitalists who not only design, build, or transport their products, but do it with hundreds of times the intensity of the average worker.
Irrelevant.


No--it's an individual concept. You deny that the individual exists, though.
I wouldn't make accusations like that,
I would and did.

given that you would prefer the average person to operate machines to produce products they receive only a small part of.
LTV. DOA.


No, it exists because each person has desires.

MONETARILY valuable. There YOU go thinking value = money.
If value doesn't equal money and is different for every person, why do we bother with money?
As a medium of exchange and commodity.


No such conditions exist.
Have you ever heard of division of labor?
Yes. So what?

Sweatshops?
Oh, you mean communist factories.

So...from what I understand from skimming Letila's absurdities, if we ever got to a point in which no one did any work because everything was automated, everyone would deserve to die and starve because they're not doing any work.
Yeppers. Since you're not doing any work/physical labor (same thing for Letila), then you're just an evil capitalist who should die like a dog in the street.

HAHA! A robotized earth free of humans!! Sweet!

They would own the means of production, right?
In Communism the worker's are the means of production and they own the means of production. They own and work simultaneously.

It's called stock.

They would own the means of production, right?

Yes, but there is no hierarchy between owners and workers.

So "work" = "physical labor". Thank your for your NTS.

If you consider brainwork such as designing something to be physical labor, then that would be the case.

LTV. DOA.

The capitalist is a useless part of the process. The workers can own and manage the means of production without a businessowner, but the businessowner can't make machines work all by themselves, at least not now.

As a medium of exchange and commodity.

Why do we need that? If value is subjective, then why do we need money?

Yes. So what?

It makes work boring and treats the worker like a cog in the machine rather than a thinking, feeling being.

Oh, you mean communist factories.

No, sweatshops are definately capitalist.

So...from what I understand from skimming Letila's absurdities, if we ever got to a point in which no one did any work because everything was automated, everyone would deserve to die and starve because they're not doing any work.

If people are stupid enough to let themselves become dependent on machines for everything, they probably deserve to die. To give up your freedom is the stupidest thing you can do.

Yes, but there is no hierarchy between owners and workers.

If people are stupid enough to let themselves become dependent on machines for everything, they probably deserve to die. To give up your freedom is the stupidest thing you can do.
1) There would be hierarchy between workers. There is hierarchy between the workers in capitalism even if you exclude the bosses and the workers are paid the same because some are better than others and thus are relied on more. I know from experience.

2) Less work = more freedom, but Letila, can I ask, what do you do for a living?

They would own the means of production, right?
Yes, but there is no hierarchy between owners and workers.
Nor is there in capitalism.


So "work" = "physical labor". Thank your for your NTS.
If you consider brainwork such as designing something to be physical labor, then that would be the case.
So "work" = "physical labor".



LTV. DOA.
The capitalist is a useless part of the process.
Marxist nonsense.

The workers can own and manage the means of production without a businessowner, but the businessowner can't make machines work all by themselves, at least not now.
And without the businessowner, there's nothing to produce. Boy, are you fucked.


As a medium of exchange and commodity.
Why do we need that?
It's easier.

If value is subjective, then why do we need money?
Are you one of those idiots who thinks that money is a store of value?


Yes. So what?
It makes work boring
No it doesn't. It allows specialization.

and treats the worker like a cog in the machine
No it doesn't. It treats the worker as a special individual.


Oh, you mean communist factories.
No, sweatshops are definately capitalist.
No, they are definitely communist.


So...from what I understand from skimming Letila's absurdities, if we ever got to a point in which no one did any work because everything was automated, everyone would deserve to die and starve because they're not doing any work.
If people are stupid enough to let themselves become dependent on machines for everything, they probably deserve to die.
Luddite.

To give up your freedom is the stupidest thing you can do.
Who says that is what happens?

There would be hierarchy between workers. There is hierarchy between the workers in capitalism even if you exclude the bosses and the workers are paid the same because some are better than others and thus are relied on more. I know from experience.

It would be socialism and there would be no hierarchy between workers. They would have equal power in the firm.

Less work = more freedom

How do you achieve automation? By making machines do everything? Who maintains the machines? More machines? Who innovates? Machines? If the machines innovate, they must be intelligent. If they are intelligent, they would be able to excersize power over us. We would be utterly dependent on them.

Less work = more freedom

How do you achieve automation? By making machines do everything? Who maintains the machines? More machines? Who innovates? Machines? If the machines innovate, they must be intelligent. If they are intelligent, they would be able to excersize power over us. We would be utterly dependent on them.
We already are dependent on machines. I don't think humans are stupid enough to completely rely on machines. We've all seen I, Robot and The Matrix.

I've been reading the exchange for awhile, and I just want to ask a couple of things:

1) I think the concept of CEO and its true function has been lost in the discussion. Unless I misunderstood "Das Kapital", all types of labor are exploited by capital. That means that even CEOs are exploited by capitalists, since their function is not to put the capital but to lead an organization, and in most big companies, they aren't the owners. And working closely with several CEOs, I've seen them put 12-14 hours per day, usually 6-7 days a week under enourmous stress in order to create and execute the strategies that keep an organization going, I have to wonder why they are not considered part of the exploited, especially since their work usually means life or death for a company, but the exploiters... just because they win more money? have any actually seen them work closely to understand the tremendous value they have in a company?

2) Most of the stock in the world's stock exchange is now controlled by financial institutions, who represent the interests of millions of people in trust funds, mutual funds, saving funds, retirement funds, etc. Hell, I own stock from my company savings fund, and from a couple of mutual funds. The amount I have is insignificant, but yet I am supposed to be the evil guy opressing the lesser classes? Which lesser class, BTW? Myself as a worker of a corporation? BTW, I am OVER simplificating Investment Finance.

3) If you check the Financial Statements of most corporations, the so called part that is "stolen" from labor, usually ends up paying materials costs, maintenance, "overhead" (a term that defines work functions which cannot be easily attributed to a certain product, like distribution, R&D, etc.), oursourcing, etc, etc etc... needed in order to produce and deliver in the maket. In the end a typical succesful company may make as Net Profit only 10% of its revenues. And then some of it is reinvested to mantain a company ongoing, which means only 5-3% is truly going out. All the fuss about exploitation is based in that measly %? I know I am OVER simplificating corporate finance.

4) If Marxism (historical materialism or dialectic materialism) is truly a science, then the final revolution is something that will end up happening once the conditions are properly established. Now, Marx and Engels advocated globalisation, industralisation, widespread democracy. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc., eventually came up with doctrines of "although this part of the world is liberated, now let's wait for the rest to catch up". I have to wonder why current communists are suddenly against such ideals, when it was supposed to be the necessary conditions for Revolution.

Hooah.

We already are dependent on machines. I don't think humans are stupid enough to completely rely on machines. We've all seen I, Robot and The Matrix.

And look what it's done for us. We spend all our time maintaining the civilization we have created. Many hunter-gatherer societies had or have workdays of only several hours. For all the achievements we've done, we've created as many problems as we have solved.

Nor is there in capitalism.

There is a great deal of hierarchy between the workers and boss. Who gives the orders? Who follows them? See? Hierarchy.

So "work" = "physical labor".

Yeas, then. If that's how you view thinking.

Marxist nonsense.

I'm an anarchist. At least get my political views right.

And without the businessowner, there's nothing to produce. Boy, are you fucked.

People create needs, not businessowners. We would still have stuff to produce if the businessowner is gone.

It's easier.

So is not working at all, but working results in something better. Likewise, not using money could have better results.

Are you one of those idiots who thinks that money is a store of value?

No, it is basically a sign telling the government not to use violence to separate you from the product.

No it doesn't. It allows specialization.

No it doesn't. It treats the worker as a special individual.

How is attaching bolts to a car being treated as special?

No, they are definitely communist.

There's nothing socialist about them. They are strictly top-down, just like capitalism. The workers don't manage the means of production the way they do in socialism.

Luddite.

Technocrat.

Who says that is what happens?

If you put yourself at the mercy of machines that do everything, you are in huge trouble if they decide to quit or they break down and no one knows how to repair them.

We already are dependent on machines. I don't think humans are stupid enough to completely rely on machines. We've all seen I, Robot and The Matrix.
And look what it's done for us. We spend all our time maintaining the civilization we have created. Many hunter-gatherer societies had or have workdays of only several hours.
And look how long they didn't live and the squalid conditions they lived in. Yeah, that's a really good fucking comparison.


Nor is there in capitalism.
There is a great deal of hierarchy between the workers and boss. Who gives the orders? Who follows them? See? Hierarchy.
Nope. It's not a heirarchy. It's a mutual agreement.


So "work" = "physical labor".
Yeas, then. If that's how you view thinking.
Just trying to get how you view it, since you constantly say that the capitalist does no work at all and that the factory worker does something. It always seems to come down to Letila's special definition of work that excludes everything but physical labor.


Marxist nonsense.
I'm an anarchist. At least get my political views right.
Nah. Socialism/communism is anethema to anarchism.


And without the businessowner, there's nothing to produce. Boy, are you fucked.
People create needs, not businessowners. We would still have stuff to produce if the businessowner is gone.
Not without the means.


It's easier.
So is not working at all, but working results in something better. Likewise, not using money could have better results.
No, it couldn't. It would reduce to barter, which is grossly inefficient.


Are you one of those idiots who thinks that money is a store of value?
No, it is basically a sign telling the government not to use violence to separate you from the product.
So I can take anything that you have and you can't do anything about it, since, ipso facto, you would be like the government trying to separate me from a product.

Fucking moron.


No it doesn't. It allows specialization.

No it doesn't. It treats the worker as a special individual.
How is attaching bolts to a car being treated as special?
How isn't it?

How is not being able to specialize in heart surgery better than trying to learn every single part of medical science? Don't you want to have someone who specializes in heart surgery if you have a heart problem?

Division.
of.
Labor.
Specialization.

See how it's better?


No, they are definitely communist.
There's nothing socialist about them.
There's everything socialistic about it. The misery is spread. The workers get no say, just like in socialism, because it's all done by a committee. It's just like socialism and communism.


Luddite.
Technocrat.
Primitivist.


Who says that is what happens?
If you put yourself at the mercy of machines that do everything, you are in huge trouble if they decide to quit
They can't decide anything. They aren't alive.

or they break down and no one knows how to repair them.
Oh, you're thinking of the movies. I see. There's your problem.

And look how long they didn't live and the squalid conditions they lived in. Yeah, that's a really good fucking comparison.

While they didn't live as well as the average Westerner today, they certainly lived no worse than the people in sweatshops for 12 hours a day. The truly squalid conditions and short life-spans were the result of them being packed into cities with the coming of agriculture.

Nope. It's not a heirarchy. It's a mutual agreement.

The workers aren't there because they want to be.

Just trying to get how you view it, since you constantly say that the capitalist does no work at all and that the factory worker does something. It always seems to come down to Letila's special definition of work that excludes everything but physical labor.

What does the capitalist do? Allow the means of production to be used? How much effort is that?

Nah. Socialism/communism is anethema to anarchism.

Hardly. They are based on equality, not hierarchy. They are inherent to anarchism.

Not without the means.

Which can be owned by workers or the commune instead of capitalists.

No, it couldn't. It would reduce to barter, which is grossly inefficient.

Or gift economy. Haven't you heard of it?

So I can take anything that you have and you can't do anything about it, since, ipso facto, you would be like the government trying to separate me from a product.

Communism abolishes private property other than personal possessions. Because of free distribution, it is no longer necessary to take other's things.

How isn't it?

How is not being able to specialize in heart surgery better than trying to learn every single part of medical science? Don't you want to have someone who specializes in heart surgery if you have a heart problem?

Division.
of.
Labor.
Specialization.

See how it's better?

In that case, it's a necessary evil. The doctor pays a heavy price in flexibility.

There's everything socialistic about it. The misery is spread. The workers get no say, just like in socialism, because it's all done by a committee. It's just like socialism and communism.

The workers must control the means of production in order for it to be socialism. If they don't, then it isn't socialist. Is feudalism socialist simply because it isn't capitalist? That's what you seem to think.

Primitivist.

Patrick Zala wannabe

They can't decide anything. They aren't alive.

Then how can they manage things?

Oh, you're thinking of the movies. I see. There's your problem.

They may be movies, but they aren't without their points.

The workers aren't there because they want to be.
The only reason I don't quit my job earning $5.40/hr is because I kind of enjoy working. My parents would take care of me for another few years (at least until I got my bachelor's) if I asked them to and I'm getting money back off scholarships...

So I repeat my question, what do you do for a living?

They may be movies, but they aren't without their points.
While it is true they have points, it also remains true that they are fictional. They are not the future, they aren't even predictions of the future. They are warnings of what could come. Humans will take note of these warnings and plan ahead dipshit.

While it is true they have points, it also remains true that they are fictional. They are not the future, they aren't even predictions of the future. They are warnings of what could come. Humans will take note of these warnings and plan ahead dipshit.

And that means not giving into the temptation to become dependent on machines.

The only reason I don't quit my job earning $5.40/hr is because I kind of enjoy working. My parents would take care of me for another few years (at least until I got my bachelor's) if I asked them to and I'm getting money back off scholarships...

Not everyone does. Besides, wouldn't you want free distribution and worker self-management?

So I repeat my question, what do you do for a living?

I don't have a job yet.

And that means not giving into the temptation to become dependent on machines.We already do depend on machines. They make life easier. You're using a machine right now. Please hang yourself for being contradictory.



Not everyone does. Besides, wouldn't you want free distribution and worker self-management?Not everyone does because lots of people (I'm sure you're included in these "lots of people") are lazy idiots without "work ethic"



I don't have a job yet.
Then if you haven't already hanged (yes, that's correct grammar) yourself for being contradictory, hang your self for talking about the work force without having any experience in the work force.

Alright Opal Isle, I usually agree with what you have to say, and I still do in this thread.

But . . . please, we've known for decades now that capitalism works greater than communism.

You don't need to keep posting common knowledge.

I'm sure you know socialism does not equal communism.

Alright Opal Isle, I usually agree with what you have to say, and I still do in this thread.

But . . . please, we've known for decades now that capitalism works greater than communism.

You don't need to keep posting common knowledge.

I'm sure you know socialism does not equal communism.
Proving Letila wrong and watching him deny it thread after thread after thread will NEVER get old. --Thanks for being a fan though! ;)

We already do depend on machines. They make life easier. You're using a machine right now. Please hang yourself for being contradictory.

And right now, people are working for 8 hours in powerplants to make computers run. They may make life easier in some ways, but they still create work elsewhere.

Not everyone does because lots of people (I'm sure you're included in these "lots of people") are lazy idiots without "work ethic"

If by "work ethic", you mean "slave ethic", then yes, they lack work ethic. However, anarchists, the communist ones at least, advocate the abolition of unpleasant working conditions that make productive activity so boring and hated.

Then if you haven't already hanged (yes, that's correct grammar) yourself for being contradictory, hang your self for talking about the work force without having any experience in the work force.

As a matter of fact, I have done work before. I live on a farm and clean the crap off a building where our chickens live. I also sometimes pick up bails or other crops, often in 100°F weather.

And that means not giving into the temptation to become dependent on machines.

true or false: a world in which no human needed to do menial labor (because said labor would be done by machines) would be a good thing.


Not everyone does. Besides, wouldn't you want free distribution and worker self-management?
no, i wouldn't.


I don't have a job yet.
*dies of shock*

true or false: a world in which no human needed to do menial labor (because said labor would be done by machines) would be a good thing.

In theory, yes, but is it possible? Is it sustainable? Is it safe? It sounds nice, but what happens if it goes wrong? How do we make the transition to it in an economy based on wage labor. Millions would starve if they lost their jobs to machines.

no, i wouldn't.

Why? Why do you value wealth over freedom?

Why? Why do you value wealth over freedom?
never said i did, that is your misassumption.

And look how long they didn't live and the squalid conditions they lived in. Yeah, that's a really good fucking comparison.
While they didn't live as well as the average Westerner today, they certainly lived no worse than the people in sweatshops for 12 hours a day.
Oh, you mean people in 3rd world socialist shitholes.

The truly squalid conditions and short life-spans were the result of them being packed into cities with the coming of agriculture.
No, it was the result of not having the technical know-how.


Nope. It's not a heirarchy. It's a mutual agreement.
The workers aren't there because they want to be.
Depends. When I worked in a computer store, my basic idea was "I get to build, fix, and play on computers all day long. And I get paid for it. Is life fucking great or what!" I loved being there. It wasn't a job--it was paradise.


Just trying to get how you view it, since you constantly say that the capitalist does no work at all and that the factory worker does something. It always seems to come down to Letila's special definition of work that excludes everything but physical labor.
What does the capitalist do?
There you go again! Why the fuck does work only mean physical labor? Fucking explain yourself.


Nah. Socialism/communism is anethema to anarchism.
Hardly. They are based on equality, not hierarchy.
No, they are based on misery and oppression, and contra to anarchism.


Not without the means.
Which can be owned by workers or the commune instead of capitalists.
And who makes the decisions of what to make? Oh that's right--it's that ineffable "everybody". But then who enforces the decisions? Oh that's right--if there's no "authority", then the workers just "do it", meaning it's a "utopian scheme".


No, it couldn't. It would reduce to barter, which is grossly inefficient. Or gift economy. Haven't you heard of it?
Yes. It's unworkable.


So I can take anything that you have and you can't do anything about it, since, ipso facto, you would be like the government trying to separate me from a product.
Communism abolishes private property other than personal possessions.
So you're like a government, trying to separate me from a product.

Because of free distribution, it is no longer necessary to take other's things.
Avoiding the issue won't make it go away.


How isn't it?

How is not being able to specialize in heart surgery better than trying to learn every single part of medical science? Don't you want to have someone who specializes in heart surgery if you have a heart problem?

Division.
of.
Labor.
Specialization.

See how it's better?
In that case, it's a necessary evil. The doctor pays a heavy price in flexibility.
Ah. So you're just a hypocrite because you know you got caught.


There's everything socialistic about it. The misery is spread. The workers get no say, just like in socialism, because it's all done by a committee. It's just like socialism and communism.
The workers must control the means of production in order for it to be socialism.
And there must not be a government for it to be capitalist. Awww, don't you like the opposition being able to play your redefinition game?


Primitivist.
Patrick Zala wannabe
Greenpeace watermelon


They can't decide anything. They aren't alive.
Then how can they manage things?
They aren't.


Oh, you're thinking of the movies. I see. There's your problem.
They may be movies, but they aren't without their points.
Oh, the same flawed points as the idiots who are against cloning because think it will lead to cloning a human in a matter of days, fully grown. Sci-fi nonsense.

I'm sure you know socialism does not equal communism.
Marx and Engels used the two words interchangeably.

Oh, you mean people in 3rd world socialist shitholes.

I'm talking about Nike sweatshops, not socialism.

No, it was the result of not having the technical know-how.

Or the harmful side-effects of technology.

Depends. When I worked in a computer store, my basic idea was "I get to build, fix, and play on computers all day long. And I get paid for it. Is life fucking great or what!" I loved being there. It wasn't a job--it was paradise.

Then why are you telling me that we need the threat of starvation to work?

There you go again! Why the fuck does work only mean physical labor? Fucking explain yourself.

Because that's the only kind that produces anything.

No, they are based on misery and oppression, and contra to anarchism.

You must be thinking of capitalism.

And who makes the decisions of what to make? Oh that's right--it's that ineffable "everybody". But then who enforces the decisions? Oh that's right--if there's no "authority", then the workers just "do it", meaning it's a "utopian scheme".

They don't need force. They agreed to do them.

Yes. It's unworkable.

Why?

So you're like a government, trying to separate me from a product.

Free distribution makes it unnecessary to steal. That's not avoiding the issue.

Ah. So you're just a hypocrite because you know you got caught.

No, it's what they call a necessary evil. It's not good, but it has to be.

And there must not be a government for it to be capitalist. Awww, don't you like the opposition being able to play your redefinition game?

Capitalism is based on an authoritarian relationship between the owners of capital and the workers, hense CAPITALism.

Greenpeace watermelon

Terminator

They aren't.

Then how do they do things? If everything is automated, the machines have to have a way to manage things.

Oh, the same flawed points as the idiots who are against cloning because think it will lead to cloning a human in a matter of days, fully grown. Sci-fi nonsense.

No, I don't base my views on technology on points like that.

never said i did, that is your misassumption.

Your freedom would increase if you had free distribution and worker self-management.

Your freedom would increase if you had free distribution and worker self-management.
maybe yours would, but mine wouldn't. i would be inhibited in ways that boggle my mind if there were "free distribution" and "worker self-management" in the sense that you use them. of course, in the sense that i use those terms, i have them already...which is why i can't WANT them, because i don't wish for things i already have.

It's reading threads like these that makes me wonder if communists and socialists realize they're trying to defend the failures at the expense of the successes. Hmmm, I wonder why that system is always going to fail in human society...

Think of it this way. If Cpt. Dipshit actually did his work and all Cpt. Dipshits did the same, we wouldn't be ultimate capitalists, we could be communists. That's why we can't be communists. Cpt. Dipshit will not play his part in helping society.

I like Capitalism because in the long run, those why try harder will succeed. They are rewarded. If you blow the chance to succeed, why should you be as well off as someone who worked hard during school.

You are in college right now, so that means you are working to be successful and be rewarded. Eventually you're not going to be working at the movie theater, but Cpt. Dipshit might just continue to work there.

We don't need everyone to have a Capitalist mindset for Capitalism to succeed, because it will reward those who do. It has been proven over time to be a good system and a more effective system than Communism.

There is no new vantage point here. There is nothing new about this entire thread.
Ummmm I think I pointed that out on page 1 or 2. Certainly same old/same old, nothing new...........

1) There would be hierarchy between workers. There is hierarchy between the workers in capitalism even if you exclude the bosses and the workers are paid the same because some are better than others and thus are relied on more. I know from experience.

ranking people by skills and abilities in order to figure out who would be best suited to do what isn't the sort of hierarchy letila has in mind (just like he isn't refering to the morphological or genetic patterns that imply common descent). the hierarchy he is refering to is an asymetrical power relation. this is typically charted as a pyramidal structure, though at its most basic it can be a simple two person relation where one is the order giver and the other is the order obeyer. whenever any anarchist refers to hierarchy, this is almost certainly what they mean.

in place of this sort of power structure anarchists seek to create a 'flat hierarchy' in so far as this is possible - one where there aren't asymetrical power relationships between people. no gods, no masters and all that.

maybe yours would, but mine wouldn't. i would be inhibited in ways that boggle my mind if there were "free distribution" and "worker self-management" in the sense that you use them. Can you elaborate on that, in which ways would you be inhibited? of course, in the sense that i use those terms, i have them already...which is why i can't WANT them, because i don't wish for things i already have.If you have them already is it unreasonable for others to ask for the same?

One of the main ways I personally think that Letilia's analysis falls down is his overemphasis on the workplace. While largely valid in the last century, I'd argue that due to various factors (increased casualisation, the decline in trade union membership, increased movement from one job to another etc.) this century is going to be one where where people live is actually far more significant then where they work.

Have you ever been to Arkansas? If not, shut the hell up. If so, you probably have only been to select parts of it and assumed the whole state is the same.

Lol how much of Arkansas do you have to see before you are allowed to form a valid opinion? I suspect that you havent trodden upon every square inch of land in Arkansas, therefore you have only been to select parts of it, assumed the whole state is the same, and so should shut the hell up.

Lets look at the famous people that Arkansas has produced recently....

Bill Clinton

I dont think that I need say anymore- that should make everyones mind up about Arkansas immediately!

Everyone in north america IS a true capitalist.

Well, I know for sure I'm not a capitalist. And then you'll have to explain how come the Communist Party got 4,568 votes in the Canadian elections?

All generalisations are bad :)

Oh, you mean people in 3rd world socialist shitholes.I'm talking about Nike sweatshops, not socialism.
No such places exist.


No, it was the result of not having the technical know-how.
Or the harmful side-effects of technology.
What technology? They barely had the wheel, fer crissakes.


Depends. When I worked in a computer store, my basic idea was "I get to build, fix, and play on computers all day long. And I get paid for it. Is life fucking great or what!" I loved being there. It wasn't a job--it was paradise.
Then why are you telling me that we need the threat of starvation to work?
I don't. You and Discordiac and Free Soviets and the rest of your ilk are always the ones who are saying "the worker is forced to sell himself to the capitalist or starve."


There you go again! Why the fuck does work only mean physical labor? Fucking explain yourself.
Because that's the only kind that produces anything.
Is it? Tell me--how much physical labor is involved in writing notes on a page? Or thinking up those notes? What about writing a book? Very little "physical labor" there.


No, they are based on misery and oppression, and contra to anarchism.
You must be thinking of capitalism.
Nope. I'm thinking precisely of any type of collectivism.


And who makes the decisions of what to make? Oh that's right--it's that ineffable "everybody". But then who enforces the decisions? Oh that's right--if there's no "authority", then the workers just "do it", meaning it's a "utopian scheme".
They don't need force. They agreed to do them.
What if they don't? And don't say it won't happen. You believe that production will be more efficiently allocated, so someone who really wants to do job X may have to do job Y because there's "enough" at job X. But that person really hates doing job Y. It just sucks for them. They don't want to do it, so what if they refuse?


Yes. It's unworkable.
Why?
Grossly inefficient.


So you're like a government, trying to separate me from a product.
Free distribution makes it unnecessary to steal.
Ah, but you claim that only so much can be produced. So if I want something and there's no more of it--too bad. Oh well, looks like theft can happen.

You don't think things through at all.


Ah. So you're just a hypocrite because you know you got caught.
No, it's what they call a necessary evil. It's not good, but it has to be.
Is it?


And there must not be a government for it to be capitalist. Awww, don't you like the opposition being able to play your redefinition game?
Capitalism is based on an authoritarian relationship between the owners of capital and the workers,
No it's not.


Greenpeace watermelon
Terminator
PETA lackey.
(is having fun with this)


They aren't.
Then how do they do things? If everything is automated, the machines have to have a way to manage things.
The machines couldn't be remotely monitored?


Oh, the same flawed points as the idiots who are against cloning because think it will lead to cloning a human in a matter of days, fully grown. Sci-fi nonsense.
No, I don't base my views on technology on points like that.
You base it on the same overreactive hype.

Your freedom would increase if you had free distribution and worker self-management
No it wouldn't.

Lol how much of Arkansas do you have to see before you are allowed to form a valid opinion? I suspect that you havent trodden upon every square inch of land in Arkansas, therefore you have only been to select parts of it, assumed the whole state is the same, and so should shut the hell up.

Lets look at the famous people that Arkansas has produced recently....

Bill Clinton

I dont think that I need say anymore- that should make everyones mind up about Arkansas immediately!
Yea, jesus, Sam Walton is a joke, eh?
And having a top 25 school of business and a top 25 school of engineering at the same state college definitely means Arkansas is full of a bunch of idiot hillbillies, eh?

ranking people by skills and abilities in order to figure out who would be best suited to do what isn't the sort of hierarchy letila has in mind (just like he isn't refering to the morphological or genetic patterns that imply common descent). the hierarchy he is refering to is an asymetrical power relation. this is typically charted as a pyramidal structure, though at its most basic it can be a simple two person relation where one is the order giver and the other is the order obeyer. whenever any anarchist refers to hierarchy, this is almost certainly what they mean.

in place of this sort of power structure anarchists seek to create a 'flat hierarchy' in so far as this is possible - one where there aren't asymetrical power relationships between people. no gods, no masters and all that.
Eh...I'm sure if I wanted to I could exploit my fellow workers. By working harder than most of my fellow employees up to this point, I've earned their respect and a small bit of leadership with them. All I really have to do is give off the impression that I'm working and give orders in a way that doesn't sound like commands. I don't do this because I have something called a "work ethic," however, the fact that I could do this proves that there would still be heirarchy no matter what system you implement. It would just be extremely informal.

No such places exist.

If they don't now, they once did. Surely you've heard of outsourcing?

What technology? They barely had the wheel, fer crissakes.

They had agriculture, which fundamentally changed the way they lived.

I don't. You and Discordiac and Free Soviets and the rest of your ilk are always the ones who are saying "the worker is forced to sell himself to the capitalist or starve."

And you're the one claiming that communism has no motivation to work.

Is it? Tell me--how much physical labor is involved in writing notes on a page? Or thinking up those notes? What about writing a book? Very little "physical labor" there.

Not much, but it does require creativity. It certainly doesn't need to be paid with millions of dollars, though.

Nope. I'm thinking precisely of any type of collectivism.

Capitalism is collectivist for the majority of people who spend much of their waking hours taking orders.

What if they don't? And don't say it won't happen. You believe that production will be more efficiently allocated, so someone who really wants to do job X may have to do job Y because there's "enough" at job X. But that person really hates doing job Y. It just sucks for them. They don't want to do it, so what if they refuse?

Then job Y can be distributed among people willing to do it.

Grossly inefficient.

Why?

Ah, but you claim that only so much can be produced. So if I want something and there's no more of it--too bad. Oh well, looks like theft can happen.

But there is no reason to take everything.

No it's not.

Capitalism is authoritarian. Haven't you heard of taking orders?

PETA lackey.

Borg

The machines couldn't be remotely monitored?

Then they aren't automated. How can everything be automated if it still has to be monitered?

You base it on the same overreactive hype.

Also known as caution? Would it have been overreactive hype to oppose nuclear weapons?

No it wouldn't.

Why not?

No such places exist.
If they don't now, they once did. Surely you've heard of outsourcing?
Yes, AAMOF, I have. It's something good.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/769493.cms


What technology? They barely had the wheel, fer crissakes.
They had agriculture, which fundamentally changed the way they lived.
Yes, as opposed to the sporadic hunter/gatherer.


I don't. You and Discordiac and Free Soviets and the rest of your ilk are always the ones who are saying "the worker is forced to sell himself to the capitalist or starve."
And you're the one claiming that communism has no motivation to work.
No, I'm not the one claiming that.


Is it? Tell me--how much physical labor is involved in writing notes on a page? Or thinking up those notes? What about writing a book? Very little "physical labor" there.
Not much, but it does require creativity. It certainly doesn't need to be paid with millions of dollars, though.
Who the fuck are you to determine that?


Nope. I'm thinking precisely of any type of collectivism.
Capitalism is collectivist for the majority of people who spend much of their waking hours taking orders.
No, it's not.


What if they don't? And don't say it won't happen. You believe that production will be more efficiently allocated, so someone who really wants to do job X may have to do job Y because there's "enough" at job X. But that person really hates doing job Y. It just sucks for them. They don't want to do it, so what if they refuse?
Then job Y can be distributed among people willing to do it.
And what becomes of said person who only wants to do job X but can't? Stop evading.


Grossly inefficient.
Why?
How do you know what to produce?


Ah, but you claim that only so much can be produced. So if I want something and there's no more of it--too bad. Oh well, looks like theft can happen.
But there is no reason to take everything.
That's not the issue. Since theft can happen, you have a problem.


No it's not.
Capitalism is authoritarian.
No, it's not.

Haven't you heard of taking orders?
Yep. So what?


PETA lackey.
Borg
Yert-toting chiba monkey.


The machines couldn't be remotely monitored?
Then they aren't automated.
Yes they are. Just because something is monitored remotely doesn't mean it's not automated.

How can everything be automated if it still has to be monitered?
How can't it be? Just because you have a task that is automated doesn't mean you can't monitor it. Look, you can automate your computer to do a backup, but you can still watch it, right? MORON!


You base it on the same overreactive hype.
Also known as caution?
You confuse hysteria with caution.

Would it have been overreactive hype to oppose nuclear weapons?
Yes.

As for why my life wouldn't be free under your worker-managed bullshit--I wouldn't be able to do what I like because of all the constraints of the production committees, for starters.

Yes, AAMOF, I have. It's something good.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...show/769493.cms

It's good for capitalists, that's for sure. I wouldn't say it's good for everyone.

No, I'm not the one claiming that.

Good. I'm glad we won't have to argue that.

Who the fuck are you to determine that?

Who are you to determine that it is a lot of work?

And what becomes of said person who only wants to do job X but can't? Stop evading.

Why? You think markets allow everyone to do jobs they like?

How do you know what to produce?

Communal assemblies where needs are discussed.

That's not the issue. Since theft can happen, you have a problem.

Capitalism can be abused. Should we abolish it? There are other ways to do free distribution besides communal stores that would eliminate the risk of theft.

Yep. So what?

Orders are authoritarian.

Yert-toting chiba monkey.

"anarcho"-crapitalist

How can't it be? Just because you have a task that is automated doesn't mean you can't monitor it. Look, you can automate your computer to do a backup, but you can still watch it, right? MORON!

Then it isn't very automated if it still requires people to monitor it.

You confuse hysteria with caution.

Possibly, but better safe than sorry.

Yes.

Nuclear weapons killed thousands of people. I think criticism of them would turn out to be very true.

As for why my life wouldn't be free under your worker-managed bullshit--I wouldn't be able to do what I like because of all the constraints of the production committees, for starters.

As though markets don't put constrants on what you can produce.

As though markets don't put constrants on what you can produce.
Based off supply and demand, yes. The only difference is that if there are few suppliers of something in high demand, those few suppliers will yeild more profit, and can then exchange their money with more people, allowing them to have an easier life with more goods, and allowing all the other suppliers to have a better life because they sold more products since the richer guy spent more.

Based off supply and demand, yes. The only difference is that if there are few suppliers of something in high demand, those few suppliers will yeild more profit, and can then exchange their money with more people, allowing them to have an easier life with more goods, and allowing all the other suppliers to have a better life because they sold more products since the richer guy spent more.

Why is that a good thing? Taking advantage of a characteristic of the market isn't as important as ensuring that everyone gets what they need, at least not to me. Markets frequently fail to distribute things to those who need them most, which is one of the main reasons famines occur even when more than enough food is being made.

Anarcho-communism, by contrast, is based on need rather than profit. That means that products will go to those who need them most as those syndicates with a poor reputation will not receive the resources needed to make products while those with good reputations will receive them.

You believe in basing off of need rather than ability. I believe the opposite. I don't deserve more than what I can earn.

You believe in basing off of need rather than ability. I believe the opposite. I don't deserve more than what I can earn.

What about all that stuff about value being subjective? I guess you forgot about it once it became an obstacle in arguing for capitalism.

We're not running low on that. Try again.

Try here, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1887451.stm)here, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm) and here (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57921,00.html) for a start.

We are running out of water. We are running out of land. We are running out of oil. We are running out of food. The human species is growing exponentialy, and resources are getting scarce. There are currently 3 livestock for every 1 human on this planet. Soon we won't be able to feed all the humans and all the animals. Someone's going to loose out, and you can bet it won't be the fat litle piggies and cows headed off to Western dinner tables.

Sources (here (http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33719.htm)and here (http://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2000/03/06/)) point to the Himalayan glaciers melting, which would cause massive initial floods, then starvation on an unpreccedented scale as rice paddies feeding the largest concentration of people on the planet dry up.

People and governments need to wake up to these facts, and start taking serious steps to changing their lifestyle.

oooh! Melting mountains!! and you should maybe check and see how many meals you can make out of three livestock...becuase I surely know I can't eat a whole cow in one sitting...

What about all that stuff about value being subjective? I guess you forgot about it once it became an obstacle in arguing for capitalism.
uh...explain just what it is you're talking about...or at least quote back contradictory things I've said (since you're implying that I'm contradicting myself).

uh...explain just what it is you're talking about...or at least quote back contradictory things I've said (since you're implying that I'm contradicting myself).

"To explain it another way, all products are only valuable because someone made them. Even the machines used had to be made by someone in order to make the product. Each step in the manufacture of a product involves work changing it.

Let's look at an example, in this case a leather shoe. The first step is land that cows live on. The land has to be made usable by being fenced off so the cows don't escape and predators don't get in. Workers make and set up the fence.

The cows themselves are only able to contribute to the production of the shoe because they are fed and cared for. A farmer raises the cows and at this stage, another example of work is seen. The farmer's work ensures the cows mature and that contributes the the product.

The cows are then slaughtered and their skin made into leather. This step requires machines, made by workers. The materials for the machines are mined by workers as well. The tools to mine are also made by workers. Thus, workers are heavily involved here.

The machines that kill and process the cows are operated by workers. The machines cannot do anything without someone to operate and maintain them. The machines alone contribute nothing to the product. Only by operating them is something produced.

The final step is the assembly of the shoe itself. This is obviously done by workers operating more machines, which are, of course, made by other workers. The materials to stitch the shoes together and give them rubber soles are made by workers, as well.

Thus, it is clear that everything involved in the process of making a shoe requires the work of someone. Every stage is done by workers and the product would never even be made were it not of the efforts of people who work at the farms, factories, and mines.

These people have feelings and hopes. They do not get to meet the consumer directly. Instead, they operate the means of production, doing boring and unfulfilling activity. All they get in return is a small part of the money made from the products they made.

No where in the process does someone who simply owns the means of production contribute unless a worker produced what they contribute. The capitalist "contributes" the means of production to the process, but they were made by workers, not capitalists.

Yet despite the hard work and alienation of the workers, the capitalists receive a far greater portion of the product then workers. The capitalists have the power and the workers are the ones who do the real work. Is that a fair system?"

Do you agree with that? That's what viewing labor as having an inherent value would mean, that capitalists are robbing you.

oooh! Melting mountains!! and you should maybe check and see how many meals you can make out of three livestock...becuase I surely know I can't eat a whole cow in one sitting...

Egads.

The Himalayan glaciers, not the mountains. You know, the glaciers from which every single major Asiatic river (the Ganges, the Mekong, the Yangtze, the Euphrates, the Irrawaddy) flows from? The same rivers which irrigate the fields that billions of people feed from?

Do you really think we can go on sustaining the kind of privaliged life in the west we have at the moment?

Egads.

The Himalayan glaciers, not the mountains. You know, the glaciers from which every single major Asiatic river (the Ganges, the Mekong, the Yangtze, the Euphrates, the Irrawaddy) flows from? The same rivers which irrigate the fields that billions of people feed from?

Do you really think we can go on sustaining the kind of privaliged life in the west we have at the moment?
In my lifetime? Yes.

"To explain it another way, all products are only valuable because someone made them. Even the machines used had to be made by someone in order to make the product. Each step in the manufacture of a product involves work changing it.

Let's look at an example, in this case a leather shoe. The first step is land that cows live on. The land has to be made usable by being fenced off so the cows don't escape and predators don't get in. Workers make and set up the fence.

The cows themselves are only able to contribute to the production of the shoe because they are fed and cared for. A farmer raises the cows and at this stage, another example of work is seen. The farmer's work ensures the cows mature and that contributes the the product.

The cows are then slaughtered and their skin made into leather. This step requires machines, made by workers. The materials for the machines are mined by workers as well. The tools to mine are also made by workers. Thus, workers are heavily involved here.

The machines that kill and process the cows are operated by workers. The machines cannot do anything without someone to operate and maintain them. The machines alone contribute nothing to the product. Only by operating them is something produced.

The final step is the assembly of the shoe itself. This is obviously done by workers operating more machines, which are, of course, made by other workers. The materials to stitch the shoes together and give them rubber soles are made by workers, as well.

Thus, it is clear that everything involved in the process of making a shoe requires the work of someone. Every stage is done by workers and the product would never even be made were it not of the efforts of people who work at the farms, factories, and mines.

These people have feelings and hopes. They do not get to meet the consumer directly. Instead, they operate the means of production, doing boring and unfulfilling activity. All they get in return is a small part of the money made from the products they made.

No where in the process does someone who simply owns the means of production contribute unless a worker produced what they contribute. The capitalist "contributes" the means of production to the process, but they were made by workers, not capitalists.

Yet despite the hard work and alienation of the workers, the capitalists receive a far greater portion of the product then workers. The capitalists have the power and the workers are the ones who do the real work. Is that a fair system?"

Do you agree with that? That's what viewing labor as having an inherent value would mean, that capitalists are robbing you.
In a second, I might read that, however for now can I just point out that despite your implication, as you are quoting something I didn't say, I am not contradicting myself.

In a second, I might read that, however for now can I just point out that despite your implication, as you are quoting something I didn't say, I am not contradicting myself.

You didn't, but you claimed that labor is the source of value. I was quoting a book I am writing that explains the implications of that.

You didn't, but you claimed that labor is the source of value. I was quoting a book I am writing that explains the implications of that.
No. I said resource should be based moreso off ability than need.

No. I said resource should be based moreso off ability than need.

Then you should oppose capitalists who don't do work 100s of times harder than workers yet get paid much more.

Then you should oppose capitalists who don't do work 100s of times harder than workers yet get paid much more.
Since they obviously have no ability and they are getting paid that much basically only because they need that much, I do oppose capitalists. [/sarcasm]

Value isn't based on labor, but what you are charged is partially based on labor. Value is based on supply and demand.
By the way, this, I did say.

Since they obviously have no ability and they are getting paid that much basically only because they need that much, I do oppose capitalists.

How do you measure ability? Ability to do what?

Question: Do you really think we can go on sustaining the kind of privaliged life in the west we have at the moment?

In my lifetime? Yes.

That attitude is exactly the problem. People only respond to extremes. It'll probably take petrol prices of $5 a litre before enough people wake up to the depletion of fossil fuels and enough people actually do something about it to make a difference. I only hope it won't be too late.

Another example - In 1989 a United Airlines 747 experienced an explosive decompressurization. 9 people were sucked out of the plane and fell over 20,000 feet to their deaths. The cause was a faulty design of the cargo door which caused it to open in mid-flight. The thing is, Boeing had spotted the faulty design and alerted airlines to make fixes. The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) issued a directive, but gave airlines a year to comply, even though they knew this flaw could kill people. The accident happened about 6 months after the directive. After the accident, the FAA forced all airlines in the US to make the fix immediately.

It took 9 people to die before it got fixed. People only respond to extremes. Just like with the cargo door, we know it'll happen sooner or later, but we don't want to do anything about it. It won't be long before the destruction we've been wreaking on the planet for the last hundred or so years catches up to us and bites us in the ass. I'm sure you'll regret saying that then.

How do you measure ability? Ability to do what?
ability to fill whatever role they are being paid to fill. if somebody is being paid to be a CEO then their ability to knit a blanket isn't relavent, for instance.

Try here, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1887451.stm)here, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-26-water-usat_x.htm) and here (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,57921,00.html) for a start.
What about them? Doesn't show that we're running out of water. Desalinization shows that.

Did you want to post something that supports your point?

We are running out of water. We are running out of land. We are running out of oil. We are running out of food. The human species is growing exponentialy, and resources are getting scarce. There are currently 3 livestock for every 1 human on this planet. Soon we won't be able to feed all the humans and all the animals. Someone's going to loose out, and you can bet it won't be the fat litle piggies and cows headed off to Western dinner tables.
Ah. Anti-western sentiment. How cute.

Try The Science & Environmental Policy Project (http://www.sepp.org/) for a good antidote to the hysteria.

Also watch Penn & Teller's "Bullshit" episode on the environmental hysteria.

Utopio - Water is not a problem because of a little thing called the hydrological cycle, which means the same water keeps going round and round in this planet, giving us a renewable supply. Water shortages happen, but this is due to weather conditions.

Food isn't critical unless we run out of that one very important, very finite resource on which ALL of us are dependent - oil. Modern farming technologies produce high yields which are more than enough to feed us and our livestock. But this all needs machinery, which runs on oil. Take away the oil and thus the machinery, and we have a huge problem.

Do hold on with me while I go on a little rant about how capitalism will destroy itself and take us with it.

Everyone knows that oil is finite and non-renewable. But not everyone fully appreciates how dependent we are on oil. From oil we get energy and from energy, we power our cars and generate electricity. That much is obvious. But this energy is also, as explained above, vital to grow food. From oil we also get plastic, which to most of us is almost indispensible.

Projections by the USGS say that the peak of oil production will be around 2040, within most of our lifetimes. After that, production will steadily decrease and the price of oil will steadily increase.Therefore if our lifestyles are to be sustained, we need to have another source of energy by then.

Now, how this relates to capitalism. Energy companies, like ExxonMobil, Shell, etc. make profits from oil. Therefore, alternative energy sources, like fuel cells, are their competitors. To preserve their profit, they have to either a) "If you can't beat them, join them" - invest in long-term R&D projects which will be expensive and may not be successful, or, since oil will last for another 35 years, b) "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - keep going on as if nothing is happening. If you're trying to make as much money as possible, what are you going to choose? It's a no-brainer - option B. And what I see bears this out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but none of the major energy companies are working in, or substantially funding research into this area.

The problem with capitalism is that it is solely motivated by profit, and it is short-sighted with no regard for consequences. I'm very sure that the oil companies realise that they can't keep making money off oil forever because very soon there will be no oil, but right now, 35 years seems like a very long time, and all that you care about in a capitalism is MAX PROFIT, NOW.

Perhaps as we get closer to that fateful day, the oil capitalists will see reason, although most likely it'll be because they'll realise that the long-term well being of their bank accounts depends on weaning all of us off oil and onto a renewable energy resource.

If they don't? Well, even if the 2040 projection is off, it'll happen sooner or later. And if blind capitalism wins out, it will destroy itself and take us with it.

Eh...wrong, wrong, and uh...wrong.

First, I'm not really an anti-environmentalist. It's called sarcasm.

Anyway, saying that we are highly dependent on oil to survive is accurate, but saying capitalism is highly dependent on oil for survival is inaccurate.

Additionally, BP, a pretty major oil company, is working on maximizing the effeciency of the oil production methods, including using solar power and such to help power their methods of producing oil. Just because Exxon isn't doing anything doesn't mean no one is.

Capitalism may be motivated solely by profit, but not solely by short term profit. As a lot of us will be alive by 2040, so will a lot of people who work at these oil companies. If these predictions of the oil at 2040 are serious and accurate, the oil people are figuring something out. For capitalists, they're looking ahead and planning ahead. These oil people probably are working out something for 2040. Hell, how do you know they have already developed all sorts of things that will allow us to be dependent on solar energy? --because if they have, they're probably keeping those things locked up until society starts to crumble under rising oil prices.

Oh, and since there is no place for non-laborers like scientists and researchers in communism, we'd be stuck at oil if we were to switch over now. We'd never develop renewable fuel sources. So your wet-dream of the collapse of capitalism isn't really that great. It looks more like a nightmare to me.

Of course it's a nightmare. How could it be anything else? You think I WANT that to happen to prove some stupid ideological point? You're also wrong to say "there is no place for non-laborers like scientists and researchers in communism"... as I recall the Soviets were the first to put a man into space, hardly what you'd expect if they had no scientists or researchers.

Secondly, I feel BP is doing this "environmentally friendly" thing as a cynical marketing scheme, especially since they're a European company where one of the factors consumers take into account deciding who to buy from is the company's ethics. Their company history is hardly in keeping with their current "green" brand marketing. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical myself, but a corporation is guilty until proven innocent with me. All the same, if any capitalists were to break from the mould, I'd expect the Europeans to.

I'm only theorizing, and I hope that doesn't happen. At the same time, I can see it happening. You're doing the same thing with your last paragraph, it's just a theory, based on your own opinions and your experiences and your knowledge...

With me, I just wouldn't trust a capitalist to do the right thing just because.

Oh, and since there is no place for non-laborers like scientists and researchers in communism

why wouldn't there be?

Oh, and since there is no place for non-laborers like scientists and researchers in communism
why wouldn't there be?
Because, according to Letila, they don't do any "real work". As such, they are equivalent to the "useless capitalists".

why wouldn't there be?
Because that is what he thinks. Remember, this is the guy who thinks that an Anarchic Society will devolve into feudalism, because that is what happened to Europe when it was in anarchy after the fall of the Roman Empire.

Because, according to Letila, they don't do any "real work". As such, they are equivalent to the "useless capitalists".
Unless you consider thinking to be physical work remember.

Unless you consider thinking to be physical work remember.
which a study of human physiology does support...we burn more calories while sitting at a desk studying than we do if we sit at the desk and read a comic book, and we burn more calories reading a book than we do watching the television. but don't tell Letila that.

which a study of human physiology does support...we burn more calories while sitting at a desk studying than we do if we sit at the desk and read a comic book, and we burn more calories reading a book than we do watching the television. but don't tell Letila that.
I will tell whoever calls me lazy though ;)


Thanks.

Humans are selfish by nature. Communism assumes people will do work that they are assigned to and even if they hate it, do it for the betterment of society. It assumes humans will do what they are told, even if that person ends up suffering, so others will benefit. It assumes that people aren't selfish. Thats's it's major flaw, humans work and live their whole lives for number 1 and along the way may help number 2 or 3. When I get a job, I think of it as not helping the company but helping myself by getting me an income so I can live. If I make enough I'll give some away to help others but my first thought is me. The Soviet Union had to eventually begin to offer brides to people in their medical schools because they kept dropping out to work in the factories. They made the same doing both jobs but it was more work to become a doctor. That is why Communism failed and continues to. Vietnam and China are beginning to open up internationally because of the huge profit that the government can make. True, Capitlism is motivated by profit but as a human, I'd like to make as much money as I can, so I'm motivated by profit too. Human nature.

Humans are selfish by nature. Communism assumes people will do work that they are assigned to and even if they hate it, do it for the betterment of society. It assumes humans will do what they are told, even if that person ends up suffering, so others will benefit. It assumes that people aren't selfish. Thats's it's major flaw, humans work and live their whole lives for number 1 and along the way may help number 2 or 3. When I get a job, I think of it as not helping the company but helping myself by getting me an income so I can live. If I make enough I'll give some away to help others but my first thought is me. The Soviet Union had to eventually begin to offer brides to people in their medical schools because they kept dropping out to work in the factories. They made the same doing both jobs but it was more work to become a doctor. That is why Communism failed and continues to. Vietnam and China are beginning to open up internationally because of the huge profit that the government can make. True, Capitlism is motivated by profit but as a human, I'd like to make as much money as I can, so I'm motivated by profit too. Human nature.

Have you read anything about communism except the basics? I suggest you read the link in my signature labeled "Free your mind".

Because, according to Letila, they don't do any "real work". As such, they are equivalent to the "useless capitalists".

Owning a business is in no real sense work. Doing research is. How hard is it to understand?

Owning a business is in no real sense work. Doing research is. How hard is it to understand?
How do you judge how much work a researcher is doing?

How do you judge how much work a researcher is doing?

Communism isn't based on exact economic values the way capitalism is, so unlike capitalism, it really isn't relavent. It' really up to you to decide whether the researcher is pulling their weight. If they aren't, then the community or syndicate can always decide not to share or include the researcher.

Owning a business is in no real sense work.
and with that, the last tatters of Letila's credibility are scattered into the winds...

try telling my aunt that there is no work involved in owning a business; she's been owning her own business for 23 years now, expanded from one tiny shop at the back of her home to three stores in two different states, and she works her ass off. in fact, her husband the fireman freely admits that she works harder than he does...funny how all his manual labor doesn't seem to exhaust him as much as her lazy, capitalist working.

and with that, the last tatters of Letila's credibility are scattered into the winds...

try telling my aunt that there is no work involved in owning a business; she's been owning her own business for 23 years now, expanded from one tiny shop at the back of her home to three stores in two different states, and she works her ass off. in fact, her husband the fireman freely admits that she works harder than he does...funny how all his manual labor doesn't seem to exhaust him as much as her lazy, capitalist working.

For one thing, I'm talking about businesses with employees. In a case like that, the capitalist doesn't really have to do anything but own property and "manage" it to increase profit. Even if capitalists did work as hard as workers or harder, that wouldn't justify the coersive authority that they have.

For one thing, I'm talking about businesses with employees. In a case like that, the capitalist doesn't really have to do anything but own property and "manage" it to increase profit. Even if capitalists did work as hard as workers or harder, that wouldn't justify the coersive authority that they have.

w00t

another anarchist to ignore

Owning a business is in no real sense work.
How so?

By what special Letila definition of "work" do you get that?

For one thing, I'm talking about businesses with employees. In a case like that, the capitalist doesn't really have to do anything but own property and "manage" it to increase profit. Even if capitalists did work as hard as workers or harder, that wouldn't justify the coersive authority that they have.
just put down the shovel, Letila. my aunt has something like 25 employees now (she'd have to, with three stores and only one of her), and that doesn't make management LESS work.

seriously, kid, get a real job before you keep trying to talk about this stuff. i know you shovel poop on the farm or whatever, but unless you plan to do that for a living you probably should get some real-world experience before you further embarass yourself. spend one day with somebody like my lazy capitalist aunt, and see if you don't find yourself with a new perspective on what "work" really is.

How so?

By what special Letila definition of "work" do you get that?

Simply owning property doesn't require any real effort the way operating a machine or even acting does. It certainly doesn't require effort hundreds of times greater than the kind of effort workers have. Even if it did, it wouldn't justify the authoritarianism.

just put down the shovel, Letila. my aunt has something like 25 employees now (she'd have to, with three stores and only one of her), and that doesn't make management LESS work.

seriously, kid, get a real job before you keep trying to talk about this stuff. i know you shovel poop on the farm or whatever, but unless you plan to do that for a living you probably should get some real-world experience before you further embarass yourself. spend one day with somebody like my lazy capitalist aunt, and see if you don't find yourself with a new perspective on what "work" really is.

Maybe she does work hard. Does that justify her authoritarian position?

and with that, the last tatters of Letila's credibility are scattered into the winds...

try telling my aunt that there is no work involved in owning a business; she's been owning her own business for 23 years now, expanded from one tiny shop at the back of her home to three stores in two different states, and she works her ass off. in fact, her husband the fireman freely admits that she works harder than he does...funny how all his manual labor doesn't seem to exhaust him as much as her lazy, capitalist working.

your aunt is what marxists would call "petit bourgeois" - basically a small-scale capitlaist that cannot make a living purely through ownership alone. the work your aunt does is in the form of management, work that needs to be done to run any sort of an enterprise. but this is distinct from ownership by itself. management and ownership can be - and in large scale capitalist firms are - invested in different people. capitalists are able to hire other people to do all of the work, including management, for them and make their living purely by charging for use of 'their' piece of the means of production. those that choose to retain a greater amount of direct management but do not need to do so in order to make a living also fall here.

it isn't about manual labor vs mental labor (though i tend to think that doing only one of them is bad for you). it's about the illegitimacy of rent, interest, and profit, with a complementary set of arguments against power hierarchies and the unjustly skewed distribution of resources they create.

Humans are selfish by nature. Communism assumes people will do work that they are assigned to and even if they hate it, do it for the betterment of society. It assumes humans will do what they are told, even if that person ends up suffering, so others will benefit. It assumes that people aren't selfish.

no, it doesn't. my (anarcho-)communism assumes self interest - in fact, it's based on it.

Simply owning property doesn't require any real effort the way operating a machine or even acting does. It certainly doesn't require effort hundreds of times greater than the kind of effort workers have. Even if it did, it wouldn't justify the authoritarianism.
So work = physical labor aka the special Letila definition.

Don't you have any other line?

*Bumping this question as it got lost in the crossfire*

maybe yours would, but mine wouldn't. i would be inhibited in ways that boggle my mind if there were "free distribution" and "worker self-management" in the sense that you use them.

Can you elaborate on that, in which ways would you be inhibited?

of course, in the sense that i use those terms, i have them already...which is why i can't WANT them, because i don't wish for things i already have.

If you have them already is it unreasonable for others to ask for the same?

One of the main ways I personally think that Letilia's analysis falls down is his overemphasis on the workplace. While largely valid in the last century, I'd argue that due to various factors (increased casualisation, the decline in trade union membership, increased movement from one job to another etc.) this century is going to be one where where people live is actually far more significant then where they work.

Maybe she does work hard. Does that justify her authoritarian position?
the fact that she owns and runs the business justifies her authoritarian position. it's called "organization." she's in charge because she started the business and it is her baby, and she remains in charge because she's better at keeping all the balls in the air than anybody else.

what would you propose, that she simply not have started the business? or that she not hire employees when business got too big for her to handle alone? should she have given her business away when it got bigger than she could work alone, so that other people could be in charge of what she built? should she let her 16 year old clerk have equal say in the management of the business, to avoid being authoritarian? should she make an effort to work all the registers at all three stores in order to justify her "authoritarian position," rather than using her MBA to monitor the finances and the legal issues of the business as she is qualified to do?

sorry Letila, but you need to scrap your line of thinking here and go back to the drawing board. Free Soviets made the points that i was looking for (and expected to hear from a REAL student of socialism or communism), since i apparently know more about your proposed system of government than you do. thanks to Free Soviets, and good work.

*Bumping this question as it got lost in the crossfire*

Can you elaborate on that, in which ways would you be inhibited?

If you have them already is it unreasonable for others to ask for the same?

sorry to have missed this, here goes:

i have free distribution because i have studied and received training that allows me to change my employment at will. when i left college i had 5 employers competing for my services, and i could choose which i wanted to go with based on nothing more than my personal desires. if that employer does not meet my needs or wants i can leave at any time, and i will have ample opportunities for other employment. i set my own wage, by asking what i thought is a fair price for my services, and was given return bids of equal or higher value from the prospective employers.

i chose my job, and every day i am at my job is by choice and by my pleasure. i enjoy what i do, and (don't tell them this) i would do it for way less money just because i like it so much.

Letila's idea of free distribution, along with all his theories, centers on the idea that what i do right now isn't even work at all, and wouldn't count in his world. i would not be free to choose to do this, or if i did it would have to be on my own time because my REAL work would be mucking stalls or lifting heavy things. Letila wants all people to have the range of choices i have, and i don't think that's reasonable at all; i worked my ass off in school and in training to get this degree of freedom, and it is earned. i am qualified and a desirable employee, and i have built skills that make me appealing to multiple employers. if all people were simply given what i have spent years working to acheive it would really piss me off, not to mention that they wouldn't be qualifed or skilled as i am and therefore wouldn't be able to use that freedom very well.

Ooooh. I love picking apart Letila's feeble arguments. Here goes.

Communism isn't based on exact economic values the way capitalism is.
Let's drop the term capitalism and use free market instead, that way nobody thinks we're really talking about our current regulated and taxed corporate state. The free market isn't based on exact economic values, I don't even know what you mean by this phrase. It is based on freedom (as in FREE market), specifically the freedom to do whatever you like with your own property. (except violate others' rights).

It' really up to you to decide whether the researcher is pulling their weight. If they aren't, then the community or syndicate can always decide not to share or include the researcher.
Hmm. Reminds me of a free market. If the emplyer doesn't think you're pulling your weight he terminates your employment (which is a 2 way voluntary contract). If you look at charities such as the Carnegie trust in Scotland who fund research, you'll find that they "decide whether the researcher is pulling their weight...." and "can always decide not to share or include (fund) the researcher." Charities are after all a free market institution as they are based on voluntary transfer of property and services.

Simply owning property doesn't require any real effort the way operating a machine or even acting does. It certainly doesn't require effort hundreds of times greater than the kind of effort workers have. Even if it did, it wouldn't justify the authoritarianism.
Still doesn't justify your warped definition of "work". Justify it. Now.

And why do you keep on with your refuted-to-death labor theory of value bullshit? Who gives a fuck if someone "receives 100x more compensation than someone else"? Why are you so fucking jealous of anyone who has a penny more than you that you would steal it from them? Don't give me that "I'm not jealous" bullshit. It's patently fucking clear that you are or else you wouldn't keep whining about income "inequalities". There's no damned reason that incomes should be equalized. Get that through your little noggin.

And you have to show the "authoritarianism". Do it. Now.

And why do you keep on with your refuted-to-death labor theory of value bullshit? Who gives a fuck if someone "receives 100x more compensation than someone else"? Why are you so fucking jealous of anyone who has a penny more than you that you would steal it from them? Don't give me that "I'm not jealous" bullshit. It's patently fucking clear that you are or else you wouldn't keep whining about income "inequalities". There's no damned reason that incomes should be equalized. Get that through your little noggin.

Why should one person get high-quality medical care while another goes without? I'm not jealous of the rich at all. They disgust me with their privilege in a world where others suffer.

And you have to show the "authoritarianism". Do it. Now.

Workers in capitalism have to take orders. That's authoritarian.

Let's drop the term capitalism and use free market instead, that way nobody thinks we're really talking about our current regulated and taxed corporate state. The free market isn't based on exact economic values, I don't even know what you mean by this phrase. It is based on freedom (as in FREE market), specifically the freedom to do whatever you like with your own property. (except violate others' rights).

It is based on exact economic values, known as price. There in fact two kinds of markets, the hierarchial one and the socialist one. I don't like either, but the socialist one is much more egalitarian. The hierarchial one is coersive.

Hmm. Reminds me of a free market. If the emplyer doesn't think you're pulling your weight he terminates your employment (which is a 2 way voluntary contract). If you look at charities such as the Carnegie trust in Scotland who fund research, you'll find that they "decide whether the researcher is pulling their weight...." and "can always decide not to share or include (fund) the researcher." Charities are after all a free market institution as they are based on voluntary transfer of property and services.

The relationship between the researcher and commune is equal. One doesn't have power over the other. The commune can't force the researcher to do anything since unlike capitalism, the researcher can operate means of production not owned by the commune and sell products.

Yea, jesus, Sam Walton is a joke, eh?
And having a top 25 school of business and a top 25 school of engineering at the same state college definitely means Arkansas is full of a bunch of idiot hillbillies, eh?

A top 25 eh? Wow! There are 50 states, and you manage to have 2 top-25's in yours?! Gosh- I never realised! Hey everyone, lets move to Arkansas to get some top-25 education!

Also- the fact that Arkansas is spelt Arkansas and pronounced AR-CAN-SAW proves that it is full of idiot hillbillies. That and the fact that all the people there are idiot hillbillies..

sorry to have missed this, here goes:Not your fault, I asked shortly before BAAWA and Letila started shouting at each other. :)

i have free distribution because i have studied and received training that allows me to change my employment at will. when i left college i had 5 employers competing for my services, and i could choose which i wanted to go with based on nothing more than my personal desires. if that employer does not meet my needs or wants i can leave at any time, and i will have ample opportunities for other employment. i set my own wage, by asking what i thought is a fair price for my services, and was given return bids of equal or higher value from the prospective employers. I think that's a reasonable point to an extent, it particular I think it's neccessary for those who choose to spend time in education as opposed to going straight into a job to not get penalised in the job market where compared to those with experience of the workplace. However your right to set your own wage needs to be counterposed against why many working class people don't have the same right. It's not because their labour isn't needed. It's because every western country has at least some laws limiting strike action, go-slows etc. So do you think it's reasonable to ask that under the current free market system that there should also be a free market of labour?

i chose my job, and every day i am at my job is by choice and by my pleasure. i enjoy what i do, and (don't tell them this) i would do it for way less money just because i like it so much.I'm in a similar position. My job includes lots of open playing about on the internet because of a lack of work for me to do. (Though because of the field of I'm in I suspect my pays considerably lower then yours). When I haven't been in this position in the past suffice it to say I am quite capable of evening the score so the employer is getting precisely what they pay for, which I think is fair.

Letila's idea of free distribution, along with all his theories, centers on the idea that what i do right now isn't even work at all, and wouldn't count in his world. i would not be free to choose to do this, or if i did it would have to be on my own time because my REAL work would be mucking stalls or lifting heavy things. Letila wants all people to have the range of choices i have, and i don't think that's reasonable at all; i worked my ass off in school and in training to get this degree of freedom, and it is earned. i am qualified and a desirable employee, and i have built skills that make me appealing to multiple employers. if all people were simply given what i have spent years working to acheive it would really piss me off, not to mention that they wouldn't be qualifed or skilled as i am and therefore wouldn't be able to use that freedom very well.Firstly, I'll leave Letila to defend his own opinions rather then doing it for him. (I do think it's ironic that despite the fact I'm a Marxist and he's not his analysis of labour has a tendency to descend into archaic vulgar Marxism of the kind I gave up with faith in Lenin and Trotsky).

While I don't deny that your qualifications make you a highly skilled employee I'd question whether you're any more so then someone who's spent the same amount of time in a shipbulding apprenticeship- so it would seem somewhat unfair that you have more freedom then our hypothetical shipbuilder.

Equally there are some freedoms that I think anyone should be able to have. The current flexibility in terms of work hours avaliable to middle and upper class employees could be well used by anyone. And if employers are not prepared to give that I don't think they should be surprised when the number of 'sickees' rises.

There are also some "freedoms" that are entirely without foundation. What precisely has a businessman done to earn stock options.

And there are some things that are directly opposed to what those who get them are claiming. It's often claimed that CEOs get such high wages because of the additional responsiblity of their job. This is despite the fact that the same CEOs get bonuses for simply meeting expectations. Most of us are expected to do our jobs adequately without additional reward. Equally if I mess up I get given a months notice. If CEOs do they get large "golden handshakes" when they're fired. So they actually have far less responsibility in real terms. I'm not arguing that everyone with a well paid job is in the same position as CEOs. But I do think that CEOs demonstrate the hypocrisy and unfairness of our current economic system.

A top 25 eh? Wow! There are 50 states, and you manage to have 2 top-25's in yours?! Gosh- I never realised! Hey everyone, lets move to Arkansas to get some top-25 education!

Also- the fact that Arkansas is spelt Arkansas and pronounced AR-CAN-SAW proves that it is full of idiot hillbillies. That and the fact that all the people there are idiot hillbillies..
Haha...someone finally called it. I don't actually know what the Engineering and Business schools are ranked, but they're pretty good. Anyway, let's not talk about the spelling of English words because the English language doesn't really have any set spellings for words. Otherwise, "ghluti the ghiti" would make sense...

Workers in capitalism have to take orders. That's authoritarian.

But when the council in an Anarcho-Communist collective gives orders it isn't?

It is based on exact economic values, known as price. There in fact two kinds of markets, the hierarchial one and the socialist one. I don't like either, but the socialist one is much more egalitarian. The hierarchial one is coersive.

How is the free market hierarchical?

But when the council in an Anarcho-Communist collective gives orders it isn't?

There is no council, the decision is made by direct democracy.

How is the free market hierarchical?

Workers and bosses. That should be obvious. Note that not all markets are hierarchial. Mutualism (a form of anarchism) advocates socialist markets.

Also- the fact that Arkansas is spelt Arkansas and pronounced AR-CAN-SAW proves that it is full of idiot hillbillies. That and the fact that all the people there are idiot hillbillies..

Actually, it's French. French has a lot of silent letters.

There is no council, the decision is made by direct democracy.


Oh God, so the masses tell you what to do? Tyranny by majority?

But when the council in an Anarcho-Communist collective gives orders it isn't?

There is no council, the decision is made by direct democracy.

How is Direct Democracy not coercive. The ones who the vote goes against will be forced to comply

Workers and bosses. That should be obvious. Note that not all markets are hierarchial. Mutualism (a form of anarchism) advocates socialist markets.

You have shown that the Capitalist market is hierarchical, not the free market.

Haha...someone finally called it. I don't actually know what the Engineering and Business schools are ranked, but they're pretty good. Anyway, let's not talk about the spelling of English words because the English language doesn't really have any set spellings for words. Otherwise, "ghluti the ghiti" would make sense...

Sorry ive been away for a while, so only just responded to top-25 point.

All im saying is that Arkansas is the 2nd worst state to live in, after the much-maligned Wisconsin

Sorry ive been away for a while, so only just responded to top-25 point.

All im saying is that Arkansas is the 2nd worst state to live in, after the much-maligned Wisconsin

Alabama, Mississippi

Oh God, so the masses tell you what to do? Tyranny by majority?

As opposed to tyranny of the minority? Members have the option of leaving and finding another commune or leaving the society altogether.

You have shown that the Capitalist market is hierarchical, not the free market.

I was under the impression that the free market was another word for capitalism used by capitalists (no doubt to hide the authoritarian nature of capitalism).

As opposed to tyranny of the minority? Members have the option of leaving and finding another commune or leaving the society altogether.


So I could leave and go to a capitalist society? Thank God...

So I could leave and go to a capitalist society? Thank God...

Why? As long as you don't abuse free distribution, you get everything you need free and your working conditions are much better. In capitalism, you have to take orders 8 hours a day.

I was under the impression that the free market was another word for capitalism used by capitalists (no doubt to hide the authoritarian nature of capitalism).
Not for me. Free market is simply a market where there are no restrictions on what is bought and sold.

Why? As long as you don't abuse free distribution, you get everything you need free and your working conditions are much better. In capitalism, you have to take orders 8 hours a day.
odd, i live in capitalism and don't have to take orders...well, ever. why would i want to be given things for free, when i can earn everything i want or need? why would i want other people's effort to support me, or to have my effort support others? why not just make my own way, and enjoy the fruits of my own labors?

Why? As long as you don't abuse free distribution, you get everything you need free and your working conditions are much better. In capitalism, you have to take orders 8 hours a day.

Because all the people with any degree of ability (doctors, engineers) will have left...your society will not reward them properly

odd, i live in capitalism and don't have to take orders...well, ever. why would i want to be given things for free, when i can earn everything i want or need? why would i want other people's effort to support me, or to have my effort support others? why not just make my own way, and enjoy the fruits of my own labors?

I can understand if you are opposed to being interdependent, but if that is the case, I suggest you stop using anything that was built by someone else, especially technology, since that requires a huge amount of interdependence.

Because all the people with any degree of ability (doctors, engineers) will have left...your society will not reward them properly

You think capitalism rewards the hard working? I'm not the one advocating inheritance. Compared to that, doctors not getting paid huge amounts of money is nothing.

You think capitalism rewards the hard working? I'm not the one advocating inheritance. Compared to that, doctors not getting paid huge amounts of money is nothing.

Yes.

My argument is that they would receive greater rewards in comparison to your system, so they would leave. Do you deny that?

I can understand if you are opposed to being interdependent, but if that is the case, I suggest you stop using anything that was built by someone else, especially technology, since that requires a huge amount of interdependence.

why? i don't have any problem making use of tools others have built, so long as i purchase the use of those tools through my own labors. i don't have a problem exchanging my specialization in human neurophysiology for another person's specialization in the growing of food, so long as the exchange is deemed reasonable by both parties; the person who makes my tools or my food has agreed to sell their product for a price that i have agreed to pay, and i don't see why any of that requires communistic ideals. i don't expect them to give me their tools or food just because i need or want them, and they don't expect me to give my services away just because they need or want them. we both support ourselves through our own efforts, but that support involves the exchange of good or materials to permit us to specialize.

i don't have a problem with interdependence in terms of voluntary exchange of goods or services between individuals with different specializations. in fact, it is you who seem to be the enemy of that concept, since you don't even acknowledge that my specialization is "work."

the problem is you are trying to construct a slippery-slope situation, but the slippery-slope argument itself is a falacy.

cheers for comparative advantage

You think capitalism rewards the hard working? I'm not the one advocating inheritance. Compared to that, doctors not getting paid huge amounts of money is nothing.
i'd say that allowing inheritance is a key way to reward the hard working; if i work my butt off and manage to accumulate a reasonable sum to leave behind when i die, then i want to be able to leave it to the people i love best. THAT is a bigger reward to me than any of the material benefits i might win for myself, the right to give my children or my loved ones the best possible start and the best in life that i can give them. i don't want to see the fruits of my labors distributed to people i don't like, and i don't want my right to distribute my property ended by my physical death. my wishes for my property are the only ones that matter, and to claim otherwise is to advocate theft.

i'd say that allowing inheritance is a key way to reward the hard working; if i work my butt off and manage to accumulate a reasonable sum to leave behind when i die, then i want to be able to leave it to the people i love best. THAT is a bigger reward to me than any of the material benefits i might win for myself, the right to give my children or my loved ones the best possible start and the best in life that i can give them. i don't want to see the fruits of my labors distributed to people i don't like, and i don't want my right to distribute my property ended by my physical death. my wishes for my property are the only ones that matter, and to claim otherwise is to advocate theft.

If you have the right to advocate inheritance, I have the right to hate bums who use to get out of contributing to society. I can't understand why you would advocate inheritance, anyway, given that you view yourself as inferior and unworthy of having children.

why? i don't have any problem making use of tools others have built, so long as i purchase the use of those tools through my own labors. i don't have a problem exchanging my specialization in human neurophysiology for another person's specialization in the growing of food, so long as the exchange is deemed reasonable by both parties; the person who makes my tools or my food has agreed to sell their product for a price that i have agreed to pay, and i don't see why any of that requires communistic ideals. i don't expect them to give me their tools or food just because i need or want them, and they don't expect me to give my services away just because they need or want them. we both support ourselves through our own efforts, but that support involves the exchange of good or materials to permit us to specialize.

i don't have a problem with interdependence in terms of voluntary exchange of goods or services between individuals with different specializations. in fact, it is you who seem to be the enemy of that concept, since you don't even acknowledge that my specialization is "work."

the problem is you are trying to construct a slippery-slope situation, but the slippery-slope argument itself is a falacy.

You said that you didn't want others' effort to support you.

My argument is that they would receive greater rewards in comparison to your system, so they would leave. Do you deny that?

Greater rewards, like living under a government? How is that better than living in anarcho-communism?

I can't understand why you would advocate inheritance, anyway, given that you view yourself as inferior and unworthy of having children.

huh? where do you get that? just because i don't want to have kids doesn't mean that i think i am inferior or unworthy.

You said that you didn't want others' effort to support you.

and they don't. i support myself, by exchanging my abilities and my efforts for those of other people, or the goods their efforts produce.

Greater rewards, like living under a government? How is that better than living in anarcho-communism?
in every way i can think of. where would you like me to start?

huh? where do you get that? just because i don't want to have kids doesn't mean that i think i am inferior or unworthy.

The reason you cited was that you were genetically unworthy.

and they don't. i support myself, by exchanging my abilities and my efforts for those of other people, or the goods their efforts produce.

It's not all that different from anarcho-communism, where you agree to exchange your efforts for having your needs met.

in every way i can think of. where would you like me to start?

Anyone stupid enough to give up their freedom for more money wouldn't make a good doctor, anyway.

The reason you cited was that you were genetically unworthy.


nope. i don't want kids because i don't like having kids around. the only child i enjoy spending time with is my younger brother, and i only can enjoy him because at the end of the day i hand him off to Dad or Mom.

yes, i do have a genetically linked disorder, and yes i think it would also be wrong for me to have biological children because that would put them at risk of inheriting my illness. however, i have never stated that i am "genetically unworthy," because that would be contrary to science; i am biologically able to procreate, and therefore i am genetically worthy to have children. indeed, my genetics would grant many advantages to my offspring, even if they did inherit my illness, and it would be easy to argue that those benefits would outweigh the costs of their medical condition.

in the end, my first and primary reason for not having kids is that i don't personally want them. new and better treatments are constantly being developed, and it is likely that my medical problems wouldn't pose a deadly risk to my offspring any how...hell, by the time i am old enough to have kids they probably will have figured out a way to screen for the condition in utero, making it totally irrelevant to my choice.


Anyone stupid enough to give up their freedom for more money wouldn't make a good doctor, anyway.
anybody stupid enough to make that claim hasn't ever held a real job, nor do they have any concept of what it means to be poor.

anybody stupid enough to make that claim hasn't ever held a real job, nor do they have any concept of what it means to be poor.

I'm not the only anarchist in the world. I suggest you talk to Bodies without Organs or Free Soviets if you don't take me seriously. They have jobs.

I'm not the only anarchist in the world. I suggest you talk to Bodies without Organs or Free Soviets if you don't take me seriously. They have jobs.
i have never heard BWO or Free Soviets make the idiotic claim you just did. whether or not they are anarchists is irrelevant, since i didn't say that anarchists are stupid...just what you said.

i have never heard BWO or Free Soviets make the idiotic claim you just did. whether or not they are anarchists is irrelevant, since i didn't say that anarchists are stupid...just what you said.

I don't see what's so stupid about it. Government really can't compare to lack of government. Why would you want to pay taxes, not be allowed to have non-mainstream sex or buy vibrators, etc. so you can get more money?

Greater rewards, like living under a government? How is that better than living in anarcho-communism?

Who said anything about government?

I don't see what's so stupid about it. Government really can't compare to lack of government. Why would you want to pay taxes, not be allowed to have non-mainstream sex or buy vibrators, etc. so you can get more money?
nope, and i never said i did. congrats, you now have used the slippery-slope falacy, the diversion via personal attack/insult, and the straw-man tactic. that's three strikes.

Who said anything about government?

Someone has to enforce property laws. Who else would but government?

Someone has to enforce property laws. Who else would but government?


Who would enforce the sharing of goods and services in your society?

Someone has to enforce property laws. Who else would but government?
Tell me why private property has existed in the past without a government.

Who would enforce the sharing of goods and services in your society?

No one. It isn't anymore necessary than enforcing the buying and selling of products in a market.

Tell me why private property has existed in the past without a government.

I certainly don't know of any examples. I suppose you could propose gangs or corporations enforcing property laws, but they wouldn't really differ from governments in practice, except that they don't necessarily tax.

The fact is that "anarcho"-capitalism is one of the biggest oxymorons there is, except arguably for fundamentalist atheism and primitivist transhumanism.

No one. It isn't anymore necessary than enforcing the buying and selling of products in a market.


Really? So you think I am just going to give away the fruits of my labor? I don't think so.

Really? So you think I am just going to give away the fruits of my labor? I don't think so.
And what about people who don't work at fruit farms?!