Why can't we simply let eachother be? That's one of the problems here, we are forced to adopt the same law as people we differ with. Possibly we could adopt a form of polylegalism?
What happens when my government declares war on yours and I kill you? I didn't break any laws if it's not illegal in my country.
Law has little to do with countries. I would obviously fight in self defense. I doubt that would happen often though, it is extremely costly to wage war. The point of a diverse legal system is to apply it to everyone.
Why can't we simply let eachother be? That's one of the problems here, we are forced to adopt the same law as people we differ with. Possibly we could adopt a form of polylegalism?
What happens when my government declares war on yours and I kill you? I didn't break any laws if it's not illegal in my country.
Law has little to do with countries. I would obviously fight in self defense. I doubt that would happen often though, it is extremely costly to wage war. The point of a diverse legal system is to apply it to everyone.
Poly-legalism would demand separate "countries" or "regions" for each differing group, would it not? Living in the same country with each following a separate set of laws would be a bit tiresome, troublesome, and conflicting with the separate peoples of the nation. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong, which I suspect I am thinking of another aspect of it.
Because if we let each other be (coexistence/letting everyone form their own country), we'd be allowing Nazis (Supremacists), Fascists, and any violent nation to exist on its own. We would then be obliged to enter conflict with them should they feel the need to expand and gain more territory. We could get another Roman Empire-esque nation for all we know. It would be none of our business then to enter into first-strike military conflict with them for reasons apparent: autonomy of every nation, differing laws, and public opposition.
Why can't we simply let eachother be? That's one of the problems here, we are forced to adopt the same law as people we differ with. Possibly we could adopt a form of polylegalism?
The problem is, right, that under a free-market (i.e., unregulated by the government, or at least, largely so) system, freely associating individuals can form a commune or a private central-planning team or whatever. Under a communist or socialist system, however, people who want economic freedom simply can't have it. If you want people to let each other be, then the "capitalist" system is the fairest one. The problem is that communists and socialists don't believe in not interfering with other people's rights because they rely on economic authoritarianism to function.
Socialism is where buisnesses are publicly owned. Comunism is where everyone works for the government and gets payed the same. Capitalism is where people work for privatly owned buisnesses and get payed a certain amount depending on who they work for.
Socialism is where buisnesses are publicly owned. Comunism is where everyone works for the government and gets payed the same. Capitalism is where people work for privatly owned buisnesses and get payed a certain amount depending on who they work for.
Next time try to read up on communism or the whole thread before making such a post.
Communism is Socialism with no government.
It makes Anarcho-Communism as redundant as saying "ATM Machines" which if you don't use the acronym means "Automatic Teller Machine Machines"
At least, I think that is what The Communist Manifesto originally stated.
Let's not debate the different schools of thought and focus on the matter at hand here, shall we?
I would say you can categorize Socilaisms into 4 types.
Managerial An elite group of individuals technocrats politicians experts economists deploy capital and the locus of control is centralized. Distributive(egalitarian) categorized by transfering wealth or attempting to stimulate consumption by transferring wealth. (welfare state) Paternalist Categorized by a putative expert making normative decisions, What a person believes is best. For a good example of this i would refer to Cass Sunstein's "Nudge" Parentalist Decentralized emergence of socialism where people pass off decisions to elites because people would rather not make these decisions for whatever spectrum of reasons.
I think the Methodology of Socialism differs from capitalism with regards to the idea of transferring a single unit of capital where as capitalism has a scalar set of capital ( vote vs money). Under socialism one's political capital is attenuated and binary where under capitalism your capital is scalar. This gives capitalism an advantage in providing individuals autonomy and fidelity bcs when you trade your capital you may do so in a scalar fashion which produces a magnitude with regards to the things you want. Under democracy this sort of resolution doesn't occur Citizen A's vote for policy X has the same magnitude or preference for Citizen B's vote. Bcs of this citizens are forced to engage in other forms of participation reducing the efficacy of their political capital.
Also decisions made with this particular socialist methodolgy tend to result in aggregated purchases, meaning when you trade your vote for a policy or rep your not getting a single product or service but thousands simultaneously. This further distorts our ability to analyze what society wants because if Citizen A and Citizen B votes for representative or Policy X that does not mean that both A and B want all components of policy X equally. Under a market order purchases based on price changes or alternative goods might be purchased on a second to second basis give a better idea of how individuals value the things that their institutions offer.
Under capitalism exit capabilities are increased where as socialist systems tend to reduce the defection rate of consumers with regards to the goods and services provided by these institutions. Political decision and democracy are slow so you cannot punish an institution if you believe it is hurting you by revoking future dealings with it. In a Game theoretical sense this allows institutions to maintain iterative games and creates moral hazard in these institutions. Basically exit costs are higher under socialism.
This problem doesn't jsut apply to the institution known as the state but also to smaller institutions called firms or corporations which can obtain market power by engaging in regulatory capture or what is classically called political corruption.
Fundamentally this allows individuals under socialism to transfer their costs to other unwilling parties. Classic forms of cost transfer i think would be like teh Welfare state, or i would argue a corporation based on the limited liability aspect where the owner of a public company is not held liable for the damage it does to 3rd parties.
I do not really think property is always necessarily the deciding fundamental mechanism as a taxonomic demarcation of the two systems. The control of property may be aggregated but fundamentally under capitalism the locus of control is more decentralized. This subjects the agent/agents that control this property to potential loss or gain of control if the property is mismanaged vs managed optimally to satisfy social wants. What emerges is a sort of evolutionary loss or gain signal. Socialism retards institutional reform by insulating the controlling agents from loss due to their failures to anticipate what their consumers want or what is best.
Primitive exchange methodology doesn't require robust property regimes necessarily however there are evaluative methods employed to ensure individuals in the social order produce value. As you scale these systems up to cities or nations some sort of thing must stand in form memory that is normally used to enforce mutual cooperation and that thing is money. The perceptual horizon of the mind, in modern global economies does not extend to teh same magnitude as the ability to exchange and cooperate does in teh real world so people cannot balance accounts via the behaviors we evolved like envy or love or compassion that would facilitate exchange of value in more simple systems which would normally be associated with socialism.
Rafe, if you could put your post in a much more easily readable form, maybe people would understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be comparing the economical aspect of Socialism with Capitalism. We both know which is superior, that needs not be highlighted. What you seem to not understand is that Socialism is meant to be a temporary transitional phase, not a "permanent" built-to-last system such as that of Capitalism. "The Proletarian State is conceived of as a temporary political structure destined to destroy the classes." Socialism seeks to abolish the bourgeois and proletarian classes in favor of organizing, through immense effort, a semi-communistic worker-based society that will after time lead to the withering away of the state in favor of a communist society. That evolution can only be achieved on condition that the workers are class-conscious, organized enough to hold society on their own, and the socialist/collective/communist sector would be supported and funded by the state while the Capitalist sector would be restricted and more heavily taxed to discourage entrepreneurs from investing/participating in this sector.
Again, Socialism is not an economical theory to serve as an alternative to Capitalism, it is a temporary transitional phase from Capitalism to Socialism that seeks to abolish classes, eliminate bourgeois rule, and to organize the workers for the future transition to communism. In my opinion, an economical criticism of Socialism thus doesn't really matter ****.
Since when is worker-ownership more authoritarian then privately held-property and land?
That's not what I meant. Prohibiting individually-owned property is more authoritarian than allowing it. A free-market system doesn't prohibit - that's why it's "free". A command-economy, of course, does dictate what people are allowed to do, so that's socialism squarely set in the authoritarian box. Now, communism? No state to enforce anything like that... So how does it stay in line? You need a state to keep people communist.
Let's not mention the fundamental flaws of the communist worker-ownership system. Without a free market, textiles can't feed a man. Healing others can't feed a man. Teaching others can't feed a man. The only way that a system based on worker-ownership can prevent people from being "slaves" (at least, just as much as a "wage-slave" is a "slave") is if everyone is a brainless subsistence farmer. Oh, what an excellent world that would be! Arrest progress and force people to live like they did thousands of years ago or risk starvation, for the sake of the mythical "wage-slaves".
Quote from Garret »
Normal people won't generally respect property rights unless forced to by coercive means, eaither by the state or suffiecent use of arms by the "property owners". People who won't pay rent or allow themselves to be evicted from the homes off of someone's property can't be dealt with without coercing them to go along with a previous agreement.
Are we to believe a Capitalist society would not require a vast police-force, army, judges and prisons to enforce private property just has it has done so in the present and past?
Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them. Also, come to think of it, most people don't actually steal. A lot of them have moral opposition to it, or at least claim to hold such a stance. Either way, someone who will take what's not theirs unless forced not to do so will do it in any system. So if we're contrasting, this isn't relevant.
Quote from Garret »
How would a Libertarian society control or suppress labour unions and strikes with would undoubtedly manifest?
It wouldn't. Freedom of association. In fact, if labour unions and strikes can, you know, get any sort of momentum, they ensure, in a free market economy, that "wage-slavery" doesn't happen. I said this myself, previously - and someone aptly raised the point that there may be non-unionists and unemployed who will quite happily work for what the unionists and strikers are not content with. This is how a free market "controls or suppresses" (though it's not an inherently desirable end from society's perspective) unionism and striking. Of course, there must be a thresh-hold at which none can be satisfied - and this is the point at which "wage-slavery" is shown to be a false concept.
Quote from Garret »
If a society is under these elements, why would you want to label it as libertarian?
Freedom of association, freedom of property, freedom of speech, etc. Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom. That's what regulatory bodies are kept for - in order to prevent those who would actively deprive others of freedom from actively depriving others of freedom.
Quote from Garret »
If Libertarianism is set into the realm of reality rather then the realm of ideas (Where it always has and will exist), it would immediately create a set conditions that would lead to its negation.
And yet, that would be but one, extreme form of "libertarianism".
Lacks details, and I'm not familiar with how America works here, but looks to me like, since the house wasn't legally hers, it's fair for the banks to refuse her payments, and therefore fair for her to be evicted, at least in the legal sense. If the problem is with why the house wasn't hers (and I imagine this is the case), well, that's a problem with the United States. Not relevant, I think, to freedom to do with one's property what one will, as, after all, the deceased did not make a choice, which is the root of the problem. Should the government default inheritance to closest relative? Maybe; that would certainly have prevented this situation. Although, that said, the revenue gained from people who haven't the caution to write a rudimentary will could be useful, too. But how is this important, anyway?
"That's not what I meant. Prohibiting individually-owned property is more authoritarian than allowing it. A free-market system doesn't prohibit - that's why it's "free". A command-economy, of course, does dictate what people are allowed to do, so that's socialism squarely set in the authoritarian box. Now, communism? No state to enforce anything like that... So how does it stay in line? You need a state to keep people communist."
No. That is false. Enforcing individually-owned property is more authoritarian than disallowing it. Why? Firstly and simply because those who own that property are few and not the majority nor the active participants and contributors to that property. Secondly, not everyone owns property, and those who do not own it are not allowed access to this private property unless they either a) bow down and work to the property owner or :cool.gif: trespass, in which case they would be shot. A free-market does in fact prohibit, as I had just said. It prohibits the majority from expressing their rights to Earth, their ability to live and produce, and forces them to endure wage-slavery in order to live and access the most basic of property: housing. Communism, even Anarchism, will always be authoritarian. To abolish authority is pure false Utopian dichotomy spread by Anarcho-Capitalists, Pacifists, and many genres of Anarchism. What is more correct to say is that Anarchists and Communist seek to abolish hierarchy, that is first and foremost. Authority cannot be abolished.
"A command-economy, of course, does dictate what people are allowed to do, so that's socialism squarely set in the authoritarian box"
As I had previously said, socialism is inherently authoritarian. It must be in order to abolish the bourgeois class and take the power out of their hands and give it to the people, how it is given is up to debate and varies from system to system. So yes, Socialism will be authoritarian, but authoritarian in that it seeks the betterment of the majority at the expense of a minority. How else do you think the bourgeois will give back to the people what has been taken through exploitation and force? Surely you do not think that the bourgeois will kindly give everything back as a response to a question? Of course not. They will not do so unless by force, just as how they have done. To think otherwise is nearing Pacifist Utopianism.
"Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority... Finally, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one [class] to be suppressed. [...] Hence, the first phase of communism cannot produce justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property." - Lenin
"Now, communism? No state to enforce anything like that... So how does it stay in line? You need a state to keep people communist."
Seriously, ever even opened a book on communism? Anything other than The Communist Manifesto that is. Communism needs not be enforced by a state for the workers would fulfill that role by themselves for it is in their benefit to do so, lest they want to return to what they had sought to abolish for so long. The majority will see that what communism is by themselves, pre- and post-revolution, how else will a revolution take place if the people are not class conscience? The simple answer to your question would be workers' organization, the organization of the communist society into federalist communes, control and management of the workplaces by the workers themselves and not some obscure stranger to hold rule over it, etc.
I do not have the time to explain in detail, but I'll direct you to a certain website: http://www.leninism.org http://www.leninism.org/some/index.htm http://www.leninism.org/some/aj/contents.htm
"Let's not mention the fundamental flaws of the communist worker-ownership system. Without a free market, textiles can't feed a man. Healing others can't feed a man. Teaching others can't feed a man. The only way that a system based on worker-ownership can prevent people from being "slaves" (at least, just as much as a "wage-slave" is a "slave") is if everyone is a brainless subsistence farmer. Oh, what an excellent world that would be! Arrest progress and force people to live like they did thousands of years ago or risk starvation, for the sake of the mythical "wage-slaves"."
Nice void claim there, did you think that up by yourself? That is not even a valid argument per se, it's as stupid as saying "Communism is evil!". It shows how ignorant you are and how infantile to not even be able to think of the answer to such a simple claim. First of all, the communist system would work based on the needs first and then mnoving onto luxury. That is the main point that needs to be stressed on. Food will be the primary goal to be achieved, to be able to feed the population and prevent starvation. Farming, as we all know, has evolved immensely. Farmers no longer use plows and scythes, oh god no, they now use combines, plant fields in deserts, and can produce with a day's effort what couldn't be produced in a month's time back in the old days. People are able to be fed and thus starvation would be avoided if the implementation and the production of food is performed properly and in an earnest matter without having to "plant the most profitable type", dump food to increase prices, stock produce till they rot because of unfavorable market prices, without having to reduce the produce into capital for it to be distributed, etc. etc.
Now to continue, factories would be rampant, there would be pre-revolution and post-revolution factories built and expropriated from the bourgeois-rule era. This means that what will be produced would be varied and diversified and not limited to "what will be more profitable and sold", but will be subject to the condition of "what will benefit the society?". A textile factory will still produce textiles, a medical facility will still treat patients, and teachers will still teach students, just as farmers will still feed people.
"Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them."
That is true. You have just contradicted yourself on the matter of coercion, individual rights, individual liberty/freedom and agreed with Garret who said "Normal people won't generally respect property rights unless forced to by coercive means, either by the state or sufficient use of arms by the "property owners"".
"Also, come to think of it, most people don't actually steal. A lot of them have moral opposition to it, or at least claim to hold such a stance. Either way, someone who will take what's not theirs unless forced not to do so will do it in any system. So if we're contrasting, this isn't relevant."
False. In a moneyless society, based on workers and the needs of the society before the interests of a small minority, there would be no need, incentive, nor even an existence of what we currently call "theft". Why? Simple. First of all, there would be no money, that in and of itself is a basic deterrent to such a crime. What thieves will steal cannot be liquidated into currency and allow them to buy other items of luxury or need, so they will be stuck with what they stole. This leads us to the second point, what they stole, seeing as there is no reason to steal it and no ability to liquidate it into currency, will then result in that thief having to keep it in his home as it is. No problem? On the contrary, let us suppose that person X stole a TV from his neighbor Y. Person X goes through a lot of planning, moral complications, effort and trouble attempting to break into neighbor Y's house to steal that TV. Why would person X do so when he can simply be given a TV free of charge on condition that he contributes himself to the community he lives in? People steal out of need, why would they steal something if they already have it? Complex reasons can be summarized into need, I do not see an already wealthy person who has everything he needs start stealing because he felt like it (unless he is a kleptomaniac and that falls into "mentally ill" or the very rare cases for some reason that the immensely rich steal - such as certain celebrities). Most thieves are basically working class people who cannot afford to sustain a respectable living and have to then resort to other means to sustain themselves. With a moneyless system, one that follows Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", there would be no valid incentive for people to steal. What their neighbor has, they already have.
"It wouldn't. Freedom of association. In fact, if labor unions and strikes can, you know, get any sort of momentum, they ensure, in a free market economy, that "wage-slavery" doesn't happen. I said this myself, previously - and someone aptly raised the point that there may be non-unionists and unemployed who will quite happily work for what the unionists and strikers are not content with. This is how a free market "controls or suppresses" (though it's not an inherently desirable end from society's perspective) unionism and striking. Of course, there must be a thresh-hold at which none can be satisfied - and this is the point at which "wage-slavery" is shown to be a false concept."
"... They ensure, in a free market economy, that "wage-slavery" doesn't happen"
Are you kidding me? How can a bourgeois-worker relation NOT exist in a Capitalist system? That's the lousiest "argument" that I have every heard. Do you mean to say that workers will manage their own workplaces without the existence of bosses, or that workers will be replaced by robots/machines? Otherwise, there is not alternative to employing workers and thus resulting in what we call wage-slavery.
"I said this myself, previously - and someone aptly raised the point that there may be non-unionists and unemployed who will quite happily work for what the unionists and strikers are not content with. This is how a free market "controls or suppresses" (though it's not an inherently desirable end from society's perspective) unionism and striking. Of course, there must be a thresh-hold at which none can be satisfied - and this is the point at which "wage-slavery" is shown to be a false concept.""
What you are trying to say is that scabs and strike-breakers will exist without restrictions? Really, are you just trolling or are you simply that weak? Scabs and strike-breakers will result in the unionists and strikers jobless and workers' rights heavily and negatively affected in favor of lower wages paid to the scabs and more restrictions put for future employees a la Industrial revolution era. There needs not be more said concerning this pitiful and disgusting matter. Wage-slavery is shown to be a false concept? Oh really then, please do enlighten us about how a worker is not forced to work for a pathetic wage in order to live, exploited by the bourgeois, paid a small wage while what he produces is worth way more, having the fruits of his labor forcefully taken by a non-participant parasite that did not even produce a single product.
"Freedom of association, freedom of property, freedom of speech, etc. Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom. That's what regulatory bodies are kept for - in order to prevent those who would actively deprive others of freedom from actively depriving others of freedom."
Wow. I've debated with many Cappies, but you seem the most lacking insight into the theory you uphold and the most ignorant of the basics of them all. I'll start here: "Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom." by replying with "Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them." To enforce these rights is to coerce and limit physically and intellectually others from what is meant to be free to all: property. What right has anyone to claim property and restrict it from others to use?
Land and property have long existed and will exist and outlive every one of us, even the property-holder. How then can he lay claim to what is not his? A worker cannot "enjoy his freedom" when he is forced to toil and work all day long in order to put the most basic food on the table, sometimes even staying days without food to assure that he can enter his kids into school, pay his bills, or even buy a car. What freedom is there, if you have to restrict yourself from many luxuries and indulges when he has to work daily for a small wage while his boss gets all of the profits made, which equate more than what the worker will make in a lifetime? "When you Capitalists speak of freedom, surely you do not speak of the freedom of the worker and the starving millions."
Furthermore, the freedom to choose your slave-owner/boss/master is the same, as I had said time and time again, as the mentality of the Christian's god-given freedom, the same freedom as that of which a person claims to give whilst pointing a gun to your held should you refuse what he has to offer. Regulatory bodies, as advocated by certain strands of Capitalism, are formed of "voluntaryist" and "cooperative" people (bourgeois) and their lackeys (private security forces/armies/gangs). These regulatory bodies are not limited nor restricted by anyone except other such organizations. Seeing as X corps does not see to it as his interest to fight against an oppressing Y corps, Y corps would be free to oppress, ravage, and exploit the workers of its companies and sectors. That is a very simple sentence concerning the issue without going into detail.
Rafe, if you could put your post in a much more easily readable form, maybe people would understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be comparing the economical aspect of Socialism with Capitalism.
Actually I’m attacking the methodology of most leftists in general from your vanilla liberal progressive to anarcho syndaclists pure Marxists that want to overutilize democracy, either rep or pure to make decisions.
I reject democracy as a useful tool other then ot say it should be employed after a market test or on small small scales. We do things backward or atleast attempt to relegating market decisions secondary to decions made through state elites or through democracy.
We both know which is superior, that needs not be highlighted. What you seem to not understand is that Socialism is meant to be a temporary transitional phase, not a "permanent" built-to-last system such as that of Capitalism.
And yes I’ve read about the dialect and how capitalism is a necessary stage meant to instantiate exploitation which will eventually yield socialism and eventually communism but I reject steady state economics and accept Von mises’s economic calculation argument so any workers revolution will not get passed the stalin/lenin stage. Conditions change and capital needs to change hands when there is institutional failure.
That being said, anarcho syndcalism or workers democracies would not be stable because human capital ( skilled labor) will attempt to get better deals for their labor and negotiate at other syndicates. Tehre will always be inequalities in skill level and these inequalities will result in indivdiuals pursuing better deals by defecting from syndicates. So even if we were in a state of syndacalism it would move back toward capitalism. The only way to prevent this is with an institution that defies exit and eliminates the ability of indivudals to negotiate for better standards, this is by all estimations labor slavery.
"The Proletarian State is conceived of as a temporary political structure destined to destroy the classes." Socialism seeks to abolish the bourgeois and proletarian classes in favor of organizing, through immense effort, a semi-communistic worker-based society that will after time lead to the withering away of the state in favor of a communist society. That evolution can only be achieved on condition that the workers are class-conscious, organized enough to hold society on their own,
Here Marx again was innovative with regards to “class interest” but was to conservative with his estimates. It’s not that classes are at war with each other, its’ that all individuals are at war with other individuals or are attempting to exploit each other at all moments in time. Some of the most intimate relationships in nature are subject to exploitation between parent and offspring. It is not an issue of class its’ an issue of individuals struggling to enhance their own fitness. Marx’s conflict theory is just a very overly optimistic variation of evolutionary biology and Darwin is much better at explaining exploitation here then Marx will ever be.
Competition is unavoidable and humans are predatory to other humans, I desire a system where I have rapid defection capabilities from others and I can punish them on a second to second basis when I believe I’m being injured by them. "From those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need" does not satisfy this requirement but enslaves me to unrestrained positive freedom of everybody.
Freedom must be both positive and negative and the demarcations of freedom are designated by property claims in large social systems or if it's an olstrum-eque polycentric or common pool resource there are clear demarcations and we are not talking about large scales here.
and the socialist/collective/communist sector would be supported and funded by the state while the Capitalist sector would be restricted and more heavily taxed to discourage entrepreneurs from investing/participating in this sector.
Knowledge isn’t centralized. Entrepreneurial actions are critical to market discovery and termination of socially unecessary industrial endeavors(see china's housing boom, or USA's subprime debacle). By relegating entrepreneurial function to the state your just making politicians entrepreneurs however their capital source is not subject to performance and they cannot be forced out of the speculative game as fast when their investment philosophy fails to anticipate changing conditions.
This has to big to fail and rent-seeking written all over it. There is an inherant collective action problem here. You will not transition to a stateless society by empowering teh state and controlling it because you(the proletariot) are at a disadvantage to institutions that will capture regulators or political agents. You cannot control the leviathon with democracy. You need to interface faster with your institutions, you need EXIT and not just VOICE. Having a super state will not usher you into a communist utopia.
That is to say this is a question about instituttional interface. What is teh best way for individuals to interface with their institutions. The left tend to be overy optimistic about democracy. I would say democracy must subject it'self to teh verdict of objective reality(supply/demand) prior to it's utilization. Any way its just another way to represent demand and according to Condorcet and Arrow you will not even be able to extract out majoritarian preference in a contest between 3 choices. That is democracy is intransitive and collectives have no will. Preference is an individual phenominon even when it's manipulated. <-- though you might agree here given that marxist literature is individualist in some respects.
Again, Socialism is not an economical theory to serve as an alternative to Capitalism, it is a temporary transitional phase from Capitalism to Socialism that seeks to abolish classes, eliminate bourgeois rule, and to organize the workers for the future transition to communism. In my opinion, an economical criticism of Socialism thus doesn't really matter ****.cv
Again I’m rejecting the incentive structure of democracy. Democracy emasculates the public I just don’t accept it as a reasonable methodology relative to having scalar voting power that is subject to performance.
Also it's clear your married to this idea(just as im' married to mine) and i knwo i wont' change your commitment to socialism. Fundamentally i'm a libertarian and i dont' have a problem if you want to throw all your stuff in a pile with other peopel and share it, infact i think you should do that, just dont incorporate me into this social arrangement. If you desire something from me other then cathartic political dialogues on message boards you have to sacrifice somethign to get it, you must provide me value. Unless you wnat to hold a gun to my head.
Also wanted to add the freedom to chose your jailer is superior to the inability not to. Which is to say i'de rather have to chose between the lesser of two evils of an employer then by subjugated in some mass democratic fuster cluck(that was intentional) where everybody is enslaved to everybody else and state agents have the most autonomy.
Please refrain from using obscure/vague/specialized terms, I am not an economist and as a result I do not share your understanding of these terms. So I am thus asking that you explain in a more readable manner without resorting to such type of writing.
Actually I’m attacking the methodology of most leftists in general from your vanilla liberal progressive to anarcho syndaclists pure Marxists that want to overutilize democracy, either rep or pure to make decisions.
I reject democracy as a useful tool other then ot say it should be employed after a market test or on small small scales. We do things backward or atleast attempt to relegating market decisions secondary to decions made through state elites or through democracy.
Small scales of democracy will be used in communes, cities, or towns. That is to say on a local scale, which is small enough, and in the workplace. Democracy will not be as it currently is, a national phenomenon, it will be more decentralized and on a smaller scale affecting a single community. I do not see a problem with it really, it's a very good way to obtain a collective decision, we aren't able to suit everyone's needs nor are we able to find out what each individual wants and needs, especially in times demanding urgent results. I support consensus decision-making over direct democracy on the community scale and in certain situations. Please do point out and explain your reasons for your opposition of the democracy (non-representative) and propose a valid alternative, I'm interested.
And yes I’ve read about the dialect and how capitalism is a necessary stage meant to instantiate exploitation which will eventually yield socialism and eventually communism but I reject steady state economics and accept Von mises’s economic calculation argument so any workers revolution will not get passed the stalin/lenin stage. Conditions change and capital needs to change hands when there is institutional failure.
I am not very knowledgeable of Mises, I will then gladly retract from a debate on the subject. But please, do explain how a bottom-up non-statist revolution lead and organized by the workers themselves will not get past a "statist" Stalinist/Leninist stage. As I have said, I know next to nothing of Mises and as a result I am earnest in my question. Till I know more or you can explain to me said argument, I will withdraw from this specific point.
That being said, anarcho syndcalism or workers democracies would not be stable because human capital ( skilled labor) will attempt to get better deals for their labor and negotiate at other syndicates. Tehre will always be inequalities in skill level and these inequalities will result in indivdiuals pursuing better deals by defecting from syndicates. So even if we were in a state of syndacalism it would move back toward capitalism. The only way to prevent this is with an institution that defies exit and eliminates the ability of indivudals to negotiate for better standards, this is by all estimations labor slavery.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, too, is a temporary stage that seeks to reach communism. It is normal for individuals to seek better deals for their labor, that is expectable, but that is basically it. These individuals are part of a unionized country of many such syndicates that have abolished the bourgeois or bourgeois control of the workplace. That is to say that these individuals will apply to work in another syndicate, unless he travels where then he will return to the much hated bourgeois wage-slavery. He, of course, would rather not go back to the "old days" and would prefer to find an alternative in that community by join another syndicate that suits his needs and/or requirements. Now of course, we haven't even discussed whether these syndicates are under a general union council or not, in which case the actions and choices of that individual leaving for a "better paying" syndicate is adjusted to a certain extent. He will certainly have a number of reasons for leaving the first syndicate, these reasons or issues can be "fixed". He can appeal to external syndicates, the people, other workers if his current co-workers are "bullying" him. The factory/workplace would then be put under certain external pressures through boycotts, strikes, whatever till the issue is dealt with. The reasons and issues are many, we cannot then simply claim that an individual will always desire "more" and thus would simply quit his job for that simple and basic reason. Instead, he would work harder to improve production, to increase shipment, and vote to change certain aspects of the workplace that he so hates. For at the end of the day, what he and his co-workers make will strictly go back to them and to them only, not some external stranger. I see no problem here.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the individual who desires more due to skills or other defects from a syndicate, there will be others there to replace him as well as his co-workers still being there and still capable of recruiting or working harder. If that business were to not be successful due to the defection of that person, the workplace would be either closed, propped, or the workers moving to other workplaces but that is far-fetched but not impossible.
"So even if we were in a state of syndacalism it would move back toward capitalism."
Now that is a far-fetched conclusion to make. Rarely anyone would desire to work for a boss for a very low wage when he can work for himself with his co-workers for the full profits to themselves.
Here Marx again was innovative with regards to “class interest” but was to conservative with his estimates. It’s not that classes are at war with each other, its’ that all individuals are at war with other individuals or are attempting to exploit each other at all moments in time. Some of the most intimate relationships in nature are subject to exploitation between parent and offspring. It is not an issue of class its’ an issue of individuals struggling to enhance their own fitness. Marx’s conflict theory is just a very overly optimistic variation of evolutionary biology and Darwin is much better at explaining exploitation here then Marx will ever be.
Yes individuals are currently in a competitive society constantly at war with each other, but Marx had divided those individuals into two main groups that he intends to speak of: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. By speaking of these two classes as conflicting, he can then continue to explain the basics of the ideology of his. Work takes a lot of time and effort as well as space in people's lives, that is why it is considered a main conflict that is occurring, between the workers and their exploitative bosses.
You are speaking of the parental-offspring relationship, as can be seen in that article you linked. That has nothing to do with what Communists strive for nor what Marx spoke of: the boss-worker relationship. Communists neither seek to end exploitation nor oppression derived from the many, many conflicts in the world in the form of the parent-offspring relationship, sibling conflicts, and neighborhood conflicts. No, Communists seek to end a number of conflicts and the focal one being the previously stated boss-worker relationship. We do not really strive to end problems between a parent and his son, oh no, nor are we even attempting to produce intellectual and physical equality. That is simply very hard to achieve and not the main point that we strive for, and giving such an argument of exploitation done by the parents on their children is as far and out of topic as arguing to a vegetarian how aliens abducted Elvis. But yes, a change of system from competition to cooperation as well as reforming the vast majority indirectly by giving them enough time and the capabilities to take good care of their offsprings and more time to rest their heads, a change in the many institutions and relationships of oppression will either cease to exist or be significantly reduced. Less pain of the uncertain tomorrow, less external pressure, and more time to rest would definately change the moods and actions of many over-stressed angry workers.
Competition is unavoidable and humans are predatory to other humans, I desire a system where I have rapid defection capabilities from others and I can punish them on a second to second basis when I believe I’m being injured by them. "From those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need" does not satisfy this requirement but enslaves me to unrestrained positive freedom of everybody.
Freedom must be both positive and negative and the demarcations of freedom are designated by property claims in large social systems or if it's an olstrum-eque polycentric or common pool resource there are clear demarcations and we are not talking about large scales here.
Competition, of course, is unavoidable but it can be drastically altered and decreased if the newly bred population is taught to cooperate and care instead of compete to be the most successful at the expense of others. In a system of severe competition, both economical and social, children and thus people will inevitably and undoubtedly be competitive, self-interested, and uncooperative.
Actually, forced positive freedom is better than the lack of or shrugged positive freedom. If you are forced to aid your a poor person, then that is by all means better than barely, if ever, aiding him when you choose to. I do not see anything negative concerning the forced positive aiding of others, I'd be cooperative with such a mentality of mutual aid. Instead of leaving a poor man to die on the street, I would then be "forced" to help him, that is to say if your mind does not directly "force" you to do so.
Should you not be happy with helping others and achieving mutual aid, then please do not speak more of this for you seem to be very self-loving and feeling too self-important to do so.
Knowledge isn’t centralized. Entrepreneurial actions are critical to market discovery and termination of socially unecessary industrial endeavors(see china's housing boom, or USA's subprime debacle). By relegating entrepreneurial function to the state your just making politicians entrepreneurs however their capital source is not subject to performance and they cannot be forced out of the speculative game as fast when their investment philosophy fails to anticipate changing conditions.
No, by enforcing higher taxes on the Capitalist sector, the entrepreneurs as I said, would be discouraged from investing, propping, and entering the market place through new businesses due to the disadvantages in face of them. These taxes that are extracted, would then fund the communist sector and improve it till it is later capable of reaching a respectable size to move on. That is actually part of the S.O.M.E. theory advocated by certain Leninists and is not a universally supported strand, Socialism as I had said, is up to debate concerning the ways it will be implemented and the way it will function.
This has to big to fail and rent-seeking written all over it. There is an inherant collective action problem here. You will not transition to a stateless society by empowering teh state and controlling it because you(the proletariot) are at a disadvantage to institutions that will capture regulators or political agents. You cannot control the leviathon with democracy. You need to interface faster with your institutions, you need EXIT and not just VOICE. Having a super state will not usher you into a communist utopia.
I am not supportive of such a state as can be clearly seen, but I will continue. It is possible and expectable to transition to a stateless society through the utility of a state, but it is not very desirable to do so due to the possibility of corruption and treason of the officials in power. Democracy, worker organization of the workplace, alternative work with no susceptibility of bowing your head to a boss, ability to be propped by the state or others should you not be able to work, strands of the state controlled by the votes of the people, etc. Enough to claim practical or basic control of your community and certain aspects of the state. Remember, I am not supportive of a state and a Marxist-Leninist would better explain the in-and-outs of the proletarian state better than I. A super centralized state is supported by Stalinists, remember that.
That is to say this is a question about instituttional interface. What is teh best way for individuals to interface with their institutions. The left tend to be overy optimistic about democracy. I would say democracy must subject it'self to teh verdict of objective reality(supply/demand) prior to it's utilization. Any way its just another way to represent demand and according to Condorcet and Arrow you will not even be able to extract out majoritarian preference in a contest between 3 choices. That is democracy is intransitive and collectives have no will. Preference is an individual phenominon even when it's manipulated. <-- though you might agree here given that marxist literature is individualist in some respects.
Democracy is the best way to take decisions on an equal basis and on fair leveled grounds without unequal influence taking hold of the decisions made. In a contest between 3 or more choices, the choice being the most voted for would be the "majoritarian" decision, or the one preferred. That is speaking without including any post-voting consensus decision-making, but simply a solid democratic voting process without any form of discussion and debating. Collectives actually have their will fulfilled through democracy, please explain how otherwise. I fail to see your point. Democracy does overtake the will and intentions of an individual, but so what? That is expected and is an inevitable consequence, but how then will the community be able to advance, progress, and take decisions on a community-affective action without going through the democratic process?
Again I’m rejecting the incentive structure of democracy. Democracy emasculates the public I just don’t accept it as a reasonable methodology relative to having scalar voting power that is subject to performance.
Please do explain what do you mean by "scalar voting power that is subject to performance" and the point you are trying to make, I will not be able to reply to a very vague sentence with terms that I do not understand until I understand what you mean by it.
Also it's clear your married to this idea(just as im' married to mine) and i knwo i wont' change your commitment to socialism. Fundamentally i'm a libertarian and i dont' have a problem if you want to throw all your stuff in a pile with other peopel and share it, infact i think you should do that, just dont incorporate me into this social arrangement. If you desire something from me other then cathartic political dialogues on message boards you have to sacrifice somethign to get it, you must provide me value. Unless you wnat to hold a gun to my head.
Feel free to live in another country, no one would be restricting you from doing so. That or you can always participate in collective action, but you seem to adamantly refuse this due to certain beliefs of "self-importance" and self-love over the many, in which case as I said, you are free to live in another country. You will not be bound by anyone or anything.
Also wanted to add the freedom to chose your jailer is superior to the inability not to. Which is to say i'de rather have to chose between the lesser of two evils of an employer then by subjugated in some mass democratic fuster cluck(that was intentional) where everybody is enslaved to everybody else and state agents have the most autonomy.
Woah woah now, you just mixed everything into everything there. Freedom to choose your boss is not in anyway superior to getting rid of your boss and be free to do as you wish with your co-workers, with the ability to obtain all that you produce and decide on what happens to the workplace and yourselves instead of having to beg and plead a boss to install an air conditioner or better and safer equipment. A lesser of both evils in this situation, when you can get rid of the lot, is not an actual valid alternative anyone would go through unless he is too self-loving to be equal with others. Mass democratic fuster cluck? Wait, the number of wrongs in this claim is too numerous to speak of, but I will speak of some. What happens in the workplace, on condition that it does not negatively affect the community (polluting rivers, smog generating, etc.), is to be conditioned, decided, and managed by the WORKERS themselves and not any external interference by anyone. Same goes for communes. People participating and living in that certain commune alone have the ability to decide on what happens there.
Commune X is manged by people living in commune X and not by people living in Y. The democratic process, as a result, will not be a national phenomenon, it will be a local democratic process taken and made by the people in that commune to decide on what happens in their commune. If an obstruction or interference is being made by another commune, negotiations can then be made on a quasi-"local" scale, but still it will no longer be a national parade as it is now. State agents? There will be no state agents in a communist society, nor will there be a state, centralized or not. No one is enslaved to anyone else, knowing that the disagreeing individual can always voice his opinion of objection and even leave the commune to another one that would suit his views and beliefs.
I wanted to speak to this particularly but time constraints are going to make it hard to address other points; I will attempt to deal with that later.
Actually, forced positive freedom is better than the lack of or shrugged positive freedom. If you are forced to aid you’re a poor person, then that is by all means better than barely, if ever, aiding him when you choose to. I do not see anything negative concerning the forced positive aiding of others, I'd be cooperative with such a mentality of mutual aid. Instead of leaving a poor man to die on the street, I would then be "forced" to help him, that is to say if your mind does not directly "force" you to do so.
My belief based on observation of individuals, my own personal behavior as well as research on this subject, specifically risk-offsetting requires me, for my own love of freedom, reject this. It is clear to me that the phenomenon of need is not itself sufficiently described by the word it is meant to communicate the incidence of the event. Need can be a requirement that emerges from actual events, but need can also have a positive supply elasticity. That is to say the more aid that is available the more need will come into existence.
Need itself can be an economic output and to creating a positive feedback system of ever-growing dependence I think institutions like the welfare state are corrosive. A system with proactive impositions increases the supply of aid and thus will increase the output of need and dependence and lack of autonomy will become optimal economic strategy.
Should you not be happy with helping others and achieving mutual aid, then please do not speak more of this for you seem to be very self-loving and feeling too self-important to do so.
No I shouldn’t and I will attempt to explain why.
This is a meaningless signaling game that does not scale. I am “of-course” self-loving and do not need to enhance my “proto-market-value”, social currency, or reputational profit in a global economic exchange system as we exist in today. My ability to survive is not dependent on how effectively I can deceive you into believing that I care about you or individuals less fortunate. Social valuation is based on my ability to produce value in a market place rather than engage in primitive “reciprocal altruism” Trivers, 1971 necessary to support a tribal system.
In fact the problem here is to qualify for tribal evaluation we need to be self-loving anyway because aggregating into groups enhances survivability. This brings into question the fidelity of any signaling attempt of any individual who advertises they are altruistic or care about others. In small tribal systems this is a critical to stabilize groups and ensure cooperation.
You are well aware that I do not need to qualify for this particular social “stress-test” to not only survive but to thrive so yes I’m “self-loving” and “self-important” and I will still eat tonight, as well as next week and next month and next year. I don’t have to earn my survival via lies and deception about how much I love and care for others, in fact that is an existence that is somewhat perverse despite being the human condition and the normal course of business in simpler social systems like communes or tribal systems.
I make no distinction between this signaling game and NYSE investors salivating over oil gains or the euphoria experienced when an addict fills his veins with heroin. All are methods to pursue one’s interests but whereas the former are obviously selfish, to a blatant degree, the later(altruistic signaling) is an artifact of proto-market cooperation that can, in very large social systems where the perceptual horizon(of individual minds) does not extend to the same magnitude as the cooperative exchange nexus, be utilized for deception and extraction of unwarranted social currency, respect, reputational gain etc. To elaborate it costs the pro-social advocate nothing to make statements or gestures about how we should be altruistic, yet there is potential to gain reputational payouts here, and as such it is a form of free riding in society because scales exceed the capacity of individuals to monitor if the individuals are practicing what they preach. Knowing the former two are atleast somewhat "honest" and the later is less verifyably so says something about the virtue of altruistic signaling in general.
In addition that the poor and miserable are typically employed as a means of amplifying the effect as to the point that the poor are less likely to be able to remunerate the aid given and the signaling purpose would have parity with the handicap principle(evolutionary biology) in that the individual signals they have so much abundance of resources, or in this case compassion and willingness to give by implication of targeting the poor.
This suggests to me the poor are nothing more than raw material for the putative altruist or progressive to demonstrate their compassion and extract reputational payoffs. In tribal economic orders this would not be so bad as they would be constantly under pressure to balance accounts but in a large economic orders this is disastrous as the poor are not under direct social pressure to do so. Furthermore the primary beneficiaries are the political class transforming the poor into a form of political capital. As such we can see a problem emerge as the political class and altruistic signalers can support socially destructive wealth transfers and benefit from this, either psychologically or politically. As such game theory demonstrates that not all selfish behavior is good, in this case altruistic signaling is very bad and we must design our institutions carefully to ensure that one economic stratum is not utilized for teh spiritual or political gains of another rendering the optimal strategy to generate more and more poor and more and more misery like one of Mother Theresa's wards of suffering.
Whatever the case I find signaling of this nature a game and a game meant to obtain favor from the listeners and for that reason I don’t’ find it reasonable to play in these social markets trying to enhance my spiritual capital structure, despite my lack of participation I will still eat tomorrow.
Just thought I'd throw this in for those people who say that we aren't anywhere near socialism and think we're fine, this is a list of goals the communists must achieve in America to succeed us as a leftist country. It was written by a former FBI agent in 1958.
Everything underlined is something thats been achieved, in bold are things more and more people want, and both underlined and bold are things that are being attempted. Think hard when you read these. I'm sure you'll recognize a few things.
U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German
question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil
rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften
the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Gain control of all student newspapers.
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. Skousen claimed that an
American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless,
awkward and meaningless forms."
Control art critics and directors of art museums.
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion
pictures, radio, and TV.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy." Skousen claimed Communists
sought to encourage the practice of masturbation.
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the
need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of
"separation of church and state."
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a
hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common
man."
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only
a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies,
welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as
psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those
who oppose Communist goals.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental
blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students
and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over
domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.
USMC Craft, what was the point in posting an archaic anti-communist ideology of someone many decades ago?
I don't get the point....
It is obviously written by someone very infatuated with the anti-Communist propoganda of the time.
It has nothing to do with recent events, nor does it reflect actual Communist theory.... simply ignorant rantings of some poor brainwashed individual.
Watch Capitalism A Love Story and then tell me if capitalism (at least in the U.S.) is right.
If that movie describes "capitalism", then I must be using some wierd dictionary. I found it odd he compared a state sponsored economic system, with heavy regulations to capitalism.
You do realize that you are speaking of the enforcement of aiding others as in the current state of things and not what would occur in a communist society? Need would be made less common in such a society due to the facts of more jobs being made, food and well-being being assured to the people before luxuries, and housing as well as the basics of human life offered and given to the people. Those points would put a limit on the amount of "needy people", with mutual aid we would then be helping them move on from their dire and poor position. I'm not supporting people who live off of welfare when they can work and are offered jobs, of course not, those people would be lazy sods. I'm talking about the poor working class families and the unemployed many that are forced to go through many hardships in order to continue living. If people are forced to help them it would be better than leaving up to the individual to decide if he should do so or not. Christian charity donors anyone?
No one is attempting to deceive anyone, when we speak of the workers and the poor, we do not speak of them as mere "political or social capital" to bewitch the listeners, as you so claim, oh no. When we mention these people, we speak as advocates for their emancipation and their release from these physical and social bonds that they are trapped in, be it thanks to the bourgeois or thanks to the economical pit they are in. Why else do you think we intend to achieve a moneyless egalitarian economy that puts the control into the hands of the workers themselves? I hope you do not think there is some Illuminati NWO plot that those "commies" support to take over the world and turn us all into brainwashed slaves. It is not sentimental side-talk of which we speak, as I have said, it is the main reason for our support of Leftist ideology. Need I even explain this?
No one is forcing you to submit to any social "stress-test", that is one reason why you are so: self-loving and egotistical. Being that you are on a completely opposite pole than us, that is a main point where our ideologies differ. You certainly do not think that we speak of workers' emancipation and providing well-being and the basic needs to people just for an economical theory or for self-interest?
Certainly no one is either claiming that personal survival is balanced on whether you aid others or not, for you clearly cannot look beyond your nose and that will not seemingly change. Food not bombs, never heard of it? I myself take part in such organizations, but whether I can prove it or do so is besides the point and it will change next to nothing.
"This suggests to me the poor are nothing more than raw material for the putative altruist or progressive to demonstrate their compassion and extract reputational payoffs. In tribal economic orders this would not be so bad as they would be constantly under pressure to balance accounts but in a large economic orders this is disastrous as the poor are not under direct social pressure to do so."
Oh on the contrary, you take our claims of solidarity with the workers and the unfortunate as attempting to lull the populace to our side and do otherwise? Hah, right. We personally do not gain anything out of doing so, what we strive for will not really even benefit us, we are capable of living normally and come from homes with acceptable living standards and education. We'd be losing if we are advocating such an ideology as communism if we are to give up property, money, and time to achieve a better alternative to the **** that people live in. If I were then to be personally interested in myself, and myself alone, I would have ventured into the Capitalist economy and attempted to defend my right to jerk off to the mirror and shrug off the masses in favor of living happily at the expense of other hard-working people. For, if I were so, I wouldn't be here speaking of the workers, but I would be speaking of "individual (personal) freedom" over social and mass freedom, and attack any attempt at progress from a dog-eat-dog cannibalistic system to a more human, fair, and egalitarian system for no reason other than to keep what I own from the hands of others.
What you seemingly do not understand is that under communism, centralization would be abolished and dispersed into federal communities organized and managed by the workers. These communities (or communes) would be on a small scale, but numerous. This prevents centralization, social/economical/political monopoly on the lives of the citizens and the neighboring people of that commune. Not only that, but doing so in this fashion would enable the people to take decisions concerning them, and themselves only rather than having external "political agents" decide for them.
There are no beneficiaries from achieving communism other than the poor working men themselves. We communists do not gain anything positive from doing so except a sound mind or "fighting for what is right" and that is equality and the right to live, for we already have all we need. The poor are not being transformed into political capital, for they are the people being addressed themselves, not bargaining chips that go along behind the scenes. Read any communist book, you will directly see that it is either speaking of workers' emancipation or addressing the workers themselves and not preaching one thing while doing the other.
Socially destructive wealth transfers? The only socially destructive wealth transfers that exist are the bourgeois-worker relationship and the economical and social devastation and inequality derived from your beloved economical system of competition: Capitalism. Reforms attempting to "heal" the damages inflicted by such a system as Capitalism may actually do more damage to the general population as a whole due to economical reasons or others, and for that very reason a system overhaul needs to take place, one where no pitiful reforms are made and then redacted. To achieve communism is the final hopeful end to the strife of the poor and the workers alike, not because I say so, but because it is so, go read books speaking of communism and what they attempt to achieve.
You will still eat tomorrow but others will not. You are happy with this, others are not. See the difference here? Good. When you are able to eat while others cannot and be happy about it, that is the scourge of humanity and the core of the egotistical Capitalist. That is the very thing we seek to put an end to, whether you wish to call it altruistic and sentimental or not does not even change the fact or the goal that is being sought to achieve.
You do realize that you are speaking of the enforcement of aiding others as in the current state of things and not what would occur in a communist society? Need would be made less common in such a society due to the facts of more jobs being made, food and well-being being assured to the people before luxuries, and housing as well as the basics of human life offered and given to the people. Those points would put a limit on the amount of "needy people", with mutual aid we would then be helping them move on from their dire and poor position. I'm not supporting people who live off of welfare when they can work and are offered jobs, of course not, those people would be lazy sods. I'm talking about the poor working class families and the unemployed many that are forced to go through many hardships in order to continue living. If people are forced to help them it would be better than leaving up to the individual to decide if he should do so or not.
That is , by my estimation , a tremendous gambit. And with all investment strategies I wish you luck but I just don’t’ have any confidence, as i stated with regards to risk-offsetting which doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, in your pitch, I’m sorry. For more on this return look for Peltzman effect of risk offsetting.
Christian charity donors anyone?
Well I’m agnostic atheist so not only do I refuse to mine for social currency, but I refuse to attempt to extract celestial assets as well.
No one is attempting to deceive anyone, when we speak of the workers and the poor, we do not speak of them as mere "political or social capital" to bewitch the listeners, as you so claim, oh no.
That may or may not be the case what is clear is that this remains to be seen and further more when I speak of reputational payouts that were critical for survival in simple social systems they needn’t be marshaled by cognitive processes that are necessarily conscious to the organism deploying them as psychological tools meant to obtain economic advantage in primitive social systems. The problem here is biological self-deception “If... deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray — by the subtle signs of self-knowledge — the deception being practiced.” Robert TriversThis is what i didn’t make clear. Teh notion that the moral outrage on teh left needn’t be a strategic deception that is consciously available to teh leftist deploying it but that it is instigated via emotion and self-deception to instigate behaviors that facilitate the accumulation of social capital in simple tribal systems.
When we mention these people, we speak as advocates for their emancipation and their release from these physical and social bonds that they are trapped in, be it thanks to the bourgeois or thanks to the economical pit they are in. Why else do you think we intend to achieve a moneyless
Money is memory and is immutable to society.
Systems without money are possible only in the sense that memory can facilitate an evaluative function. Money and memory are essentially the same thing ( i believe). In small social systems money is equivlent with reputational gains, or social currency or concepts like honor, respect etc. As you scale the social order in complexity and size human memory limitations begin disrupt the ability to assign value to agents within society who are engaging in cooperation( i can't knowing reward or punish a person in china for the good or bad products he's provided because i'm not aware of their existence as i am aware of the tribal hunter i see daily in a simple tribal commune). Money presents an image of past dealings which game theory illustrates is the foundation of cooperation with one of the more stable strategies the "tit for tat" strategy.
If you can cull back society to a simple pre-industrial tribal relations money simply becomes internalized within our own heads. Also this puts into perspective that the components necessary for the proto-economy like honor or respect might have a limited horizon of usability in a global exchange system where billions are cooperating and we might want to rethink their usage in extended social orders. Social currencies may still be rather effective in limited and non-complex interactions where we have proximity and continuous dealings with individuals.
If we really consider money and it's neurological/psychological analogues it seems we have never really been without it, it has just changed in substance.
egalitarian economy that puts the control into the hands of the workers themselves? I hope you do not think there is some Illuminati NWO plot that those "commies" support to take over the world and turn us all into brainwashed slaves. It is not sentimental side-talk of which we speak, as I have said, it is the main reason for our support of Leftist ideology. Need I even explain this?
No I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theories and I think leftist and egalitarian sentiment and methodology is operational in how the values they hold, I just believe it’s a primitive form of market fundamentalism based on social currency. When dealing with complex capital markets and intangible assets that aren’t based on social status they are psychocologically uncomfortable. I don’t share this discomfort.
No one is forcing you to submit to any social "stress-test"
Then what is the purpose of this ? why communicate this notion
“Should you not be happy with helping others and achieving mutual aid, then please do not speak more of this for you seem to be very self-loving and feeling too self-important to do so.“
The fact is that i want a more mutually cooperative society but not for the sake of others but to take advantage of knowledge dispersal and decentralized information. That we try to shame each other to force a descend back into a primitive echange methodology and somehow graft these tribal dynamics over a over an extensive global system is just not productive.
that is one reason why you are so: self-loving and egotistical.
So what? How am i supposed to react to these words, if you expected shame or anger it's not there. That you say call me these things seems to be a matter of fact no different then there is a keyboard beneath my fingers now and thus totally immaterial.
Or Are you saying you want me to direct compassion outward ? Would that not decrease my utility and potentially enhance yours, especially if we are dealing with small social scales? What makes you any different then somebody trading corn futures then if you can somehow coopt my reasoning to make me act more altruistic then its’ possible that you can become the beneficiary of such actions especially in tribal systems. If moral outrage is instigating this horizontal social assault then we can see how robust a system proto-markets really are and why socialist notions are so hard to stamp out of existence, because they were so profitable in primitive social orders.
Unless i missed a deeper meaning with teh attempt to use invective ( if that was the intent) i see no point in calling me egotistical , self-loving, and stating facts about reality that we agree with.
Being that you are on a completely opposite pole than us, that is a main point where our ideologies differ. You certainly do not think that we speak of workers' emancipation and providing well-being and the basic needs to people just for an economical theory or for self-interest?
Considering the costs incurred for making statements I see no direct sacrifice on the part of the advocate.
Certainly no one is either claiming that personal survival is balanced on whether you aid others or not, for you clearly cannot look beyond your nose and that will not seemingly change. Food not bombs, never heard of it? I myself take part in such organizations, but whether I can prove it or do so is besides the point and it will change next to nothing.
In an evolutionary sense aiding others was critical to survival, especially in chimp societies. Those that do not share their food are beaten and attacked until they do(they are free-riding off the division of labor and many eyes surveillance that the social system offers), or they may be that free ride are ostracized.
Oh on the contrary, you take our claims of solidarity with the workers and the unfortunate as attempting to lull the populace to our side and do otherwise? Hah, right. We personally do not gain anything out of doing so, what we strive for will not really even benefit us,
You don’t’ feel better for doing it ? I mean think about it ? when people engage in charity or help others do they feel good after they do so or feel terrible ? I have personally witnessed inumerable events where an indivdual is castigated for selfish behavior and that castigation is charged with passionate emotion to the same extent that it would be if you were personally attacking somebody with threat of phsyical violence.
This is all I really have time to respond to but I wanted to get to the issue of signaling behavior specifically because it’s been of interest to me as of late with regards to its implications on political behavior and ideology. I appreciate the vigorous response and wish I could return the favor and respond to everything in the spirit of debate, though debate tends to polarize individuals even further I understand. Anyway I would recommend checking out Von Mises’s calculation argument, there must be a few youtubes of this by now, I would also consider looking at Arrow’s impossibility theorem or Condorcet’s paradox(a mathematical paradox that illustrates you cannot obtain majoritarian preference in a contest of more then 3 selections), the paradox of voting. Also you meantioned something about pollution an negative externalities. I would recomend Garrett Hardin's Tragedy fo the commons for that. I will try to return to this again thsi weekend by i have exams comming up and have spent alot of time on this already :sad.gif:
As of right now I still think egalitarianism/progressivism/ and leftism in general are artifacts of proto-market signaling behavior meant to stabilize cooperation through aid based transactions which preceded the necessity of capital markets or property regimes.
Law has little to do with countries. I would obviously fight in self defense. I doubt that would happen often though, it is extremely costly to wage war. The point of a diverse legal system is to apply it to everyone.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
Poly-legalism would demand separate "countries" or "regions" for each differing group, would it not? Living in the same country with each following a separate set of laws would be a bit tiresome, troublesome, and conflicting with the separate peoples of the nation. Please correct me on this if I'm wrong, which I suspect I am thinking of another aspect of it.
Because if we let each other be (coexistence/letting everyone form their own country), we'd be allowing Nazis (Supremacists), Fascists, and any violent nation to exist on its own. We would then be obliged to enter conflict with them should they feel the need to expand and gain more territory. We could get another Roman Empire-esque nation for all we know. It would be none of our business then to enter into first-strike military conflict with them for reasons apparent: autonomy of every nation, differing laws, and public opposition.
The problem is, right, that under a free-market (i.e., unregulated by the government, or at least, largely so) system, freely associating individuals can form a commune or a private central-planning team or whatever. Under a communist or socialist system, however, people who want economic freedom simply can't have it. If you want people to let each other be, then the "capitalist" system is the fairest one. The problem is that communists and socialists don't believe in not interfering with other people's rights because they rely on economic authoritarianism to function.
Socialism is where buisnesses are publicly owned. Comunism is where everyone works for the government and gets payed the same. Capitalism is where people work for privatly owned buisnesses and get payed a certain amount depending on who they work for.
Next time try to read up on communism or the whole thread before making such a post.
Let's not debate the different schools of thought and focus on the matter at hand here, shall we?
Managerial An elite group of individuals technocrats politicians experts economists deploy capital and the locus of control is centralized.
Distributive(egalitarian) categorized by transfering wealth or attempting to stimulate consumption by transferring wealth. (welfare state)
Paternalist Categorized by a putative expert making normative decisions, What a person believes is best. For a good example of this i would refer to Cass Sunstein's "Nudge"
Parentalist Decentralized emergence of socialism where people pass off decisions to elites because people would rather not make these decisions for whatever spectrum of reasons.
According to Buchanen's 05 which attempts to derive a taxonomy. "Afraid to be free: Dependency as desideratum"
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf
I think the Methodology of Socialism differs from capitalism with regards to the idea of transferring a single unit of capital where as capitalism has a scalar set of capital ( vote vs money). Under socialism one's political capital is attenuated and binary where under capitalism your capital is scalar. This gives capitalism an advantage in providing individuals autonomy and fidelity bcs when you trade your capital you may do so in a scalar fashion which produces a magnitude with regards to the things you want. Under democracy this sort of resolution doesn't occur Citizen A's vote for policy X has the same magnitude or preference for Citizen B's vote. Bcs of this citizens are forced to engage in other forms of participation reducing the efficacy of their political capital.
Also decisions made with this particular socialist methodolgy tend to result in aggregated purchases, meaning when you trade your vote for a policy or rep your not getting a single product or service but thousands simultaneously. This further distorts our ability to analyze what society wants because if Citizen A and Citizen B votes for representative or Policy X that does not mean that both A and B want all components of policy X equally. Under a market order purchases based on price changes or alternative goods might be purchased on a second to second basis give a better idea of how individuals value the things that their institutions offer.
Under capitalism exit capabilities are increased where as socialist systems tend to reduce the defection rate of consumers with regards to the goods and services provided by these institutions. Political decision and democracy are slow so you cannot punish an institution if you believe it is hurting you by revoking future dealings with it. In a Game theoretical sense this allows institutions to maintain iterative games and creates moral hazard in these institutions. Basically exit costs are higher under socialism.
This problem doesn't jsut apply to the institution known as the state but also to smaller institutions called firms or corporations which can obtain market power by engaging in regulatory capture or what is classically called political corruption.
Fundamentally this allows individuals under socialism to transfer their costs to other unwilling parties. Classic forms of cost transfer i think would be like teh Welfare state, or i would argue a corporation based on the limited liability aspect where the owner of a public company is not held liable for the damage it does to 3rd parties.
I do not really think property is always necessarily the deciding fundamental mechanism as a taxonomic demarcation of the two systems. The control of property may be aggregated but fundamentally under capitalism the locus of control is more decentralized. This subjects the agent/agents that control this property to potential loss or gain of control if the property is mismanaged vs managed optimally to satisfy social wants. What emerges is a sort of evolutionary loss or gain signal. Socialism retards institutional reform by insulating the controlling agents from loss due to their failures to anticipate what their consumers want or what is best.
Primitive exchange methodology doesn't require robust property regimes necessarily however there are evaluative methods employed to ensure individuals in the social order produce value. As you scale these systems up to cities or nations some sort of thing must stand in form memory that is normally used to enforce mutual cooperation and that thing is money. The perceptual horizon of the mind, in modern global economies does not extend to teh same magnitude as the ability to exchange and cooperate does in teh real world so people cannot balance accounts via the behaviors we evolved like envy or love or compassion that would facilitate exchange of value in more simple systems which would normally be associated with socialism.
Again, Socialism is not an economical theory to serve as an alternative to Capitalism, it is a temporary transitional phase from Capitalism to Socialism that seeks to abolish classes, eliminate bourgeois rule, and to organize the workers for the future transition to communism. In my opinion, an economical criticism of Socialism thus doesn't really matter ****.
That's not what I meant. Prohibiting individually-owned property is more authoritarian than allowing it. A free-market system doesn't prohibit - that's why it's "free". A command-economy, of course, does dictate what people are allowed to do, so that's socialism squarely set in the authoritarian box. Now, communism? No state to enforce anything like that... So how does it stay in line? You need a state to keep people communist.
Let's not mention the fundamental flaws of the communist worker-ownership system. Without a free market, textiles can't feed a man. Healing others can't feed a man. Teaching others can't feed a man. The only way that a system based on worker-ownership can prevent people from being "slaves" (at least, just as much as a "wage-slave" is a "slave") is if everyone is a brainless subsistence farmer. Oh, what an excellent world that would be! Arrest progress and force people to live like they did thousands of years ago or risk starvation, for the sake of the mythical "wage-slaves".
Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them. Also, come to think of it, most people don't actually steal. A lot of them have moral opposition to it, or at least claim to hold such a stance. Either way, someone who will take what's not theirs unless forced not to do so will do it in any system. So if we're contrasting, this isn't relevant.
It wouldn't. Freedom of association. In fact, if labour unions and strikes can, you know, get any sort of momentum, they ensure, in a free market economy, that "wage-slavery" doesn't happen. I said this myself, previously - and someone aptly raised the point that there may be non-unionists and unemployed who will quite happily work for what the unionists and strikers are not content with. This is how a free market "controls or suppresses" (though it's not an inherently desirable end from society's perspective) unionism and striking. Of course, there must be a thresh-hold at which none can be satisfied - and this is the point at which "wage-slavery" is shown to be a false concept.
Freedom of association, freedom of property, freedom of speech, etc. Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom. That's what regulatory bodies are kept for - in order to prevent those who would actively deprive others of freedom from actively depriving others of freedom.
And yet, that would be but one, extreme form of "libertarianism".
Lacks details, and I'm not familiar with how America works here, but looks to me like, since the house wasn't legally hers, it's fair for the banks to refuse her payments, and therefore fair for her to be evicted, at least in the legal sense. If the problem is with why the house wasn't hers (and I imagine this is the case), well, that's a problem with the United States. Not relevant, I think, to freedom to do with one's property what one will, as, after all, the deceased did not make a choice, which is the root of the problem. Should the government default inheritance to closest relative? Maybe; that would certainly have prevented this situation. Although, that said, the revenue gained from people who haven't the caution to write a rudimentary will could be useful, too. But how is this important, anyway?
No. That is false. Enforcing individually-owned property is more authoritarian than disallowing it. Why? Firstly and simply because those who own that property are few and not the majority nor the active participants and contributors to that property. Secondly, not everyone owns property, and those who do not own it are not allowed access to this private property unless they either a) bow down and work to the property owner or :cool.gif: trespass, in which case they would be shot. A free-market does in fact prohibit, as I had just said. It prohibits the majority from expressing their rights to Earth, their ability to live and produce, and forces them to endure wage-slavery in order to live and access the most basic of property: housing. Communism, even Anarchism, will always be authoritarian. To abolish authority is pure false Utopian dichotomy spread by Anarcho-Capitalists, Pacifists, and many genres of Anarchism. What is more correct to say is that Anarchists and Communist seek to abolish hierarchy, that is first and foremost. Authority cannot be abolished.
"A command-economy, of course, does dictate what people are allowed to do, so that's socialism squarely set in the authoritarian box"
As I had previously said, socialism is inherently authoritarian. It must be in order to abolish the bourgeois class and take the power out of their hands and give it to the people, how it is given is up to debate and varies from system to system. So yes, Socialism will be authoritarian, but authoritarian in that it seeks the betterment of the majority at the expense of a minority. How else do you think the bourgeois will give back to the people what has been taken through exploitation and force? Surely you do not think that the bourgeois will kindly give everything back as a response to a question? Of course not. They will not do so unless by force, just as how they have done. To think otherwise is nearing Pacifist Utopianism.
"Furthermore, during the transition from capitalism to communism, suppression is still necessary; but it is the suppression of the exploiting minority by the exploited majority... Finally, only communism makes the state absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one [class] to be suppressed. [...] Hence, the first phase of communism cannot produce justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still exist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible, because it will be impossible to seize the means of production, the factories, machines, land, etc., as private property." - Lenin
"Now, communism? No state to enforce anything like that... So how does it stay in line? You need a state to keep people communist."
Seriously, ever even opened a book on communism? Anything other than The Communist Manifesto that is. Communism needs not be enforced by a state for the workers would fulfill that role by themselves for it is in their benefit to do so, lest they want to return to what they had sought to abolish for so long. The majority will see that what communism is by themselves, pre- and post-revolution, how else will a revolution take place if the people are not class conscience? The simple answer to your question would be workers' organization, the organization of the communist society into federalist communes, control and management of the workplaces by the workers themselves and not some obscure stranger to hold rule over it, etc.
I do not have the time to explain in detail, but I'll direct you to a certain website:
http://www.leninism.org
http://www.leninism.org/some/index.htm
http://www.leninism.org/some/aj/contents.htm
Nice void claim there, did you think that up by yourself? That is not even a valid argument per se, it's as stupid as saying "Communism is evil!". It shows how ignorant you are and how infantile to not even be able to think of the answer to such a simple claim. First of all, the communist system would work based on the needs first and then mnoving onto luxury. That is the main point that needs to be stressed on. Food will be the primary goal to be achieved, to be able to feed the population and prevent starvation. Farming, as we all know, has evolved immensely. Farmers no longer use plows and scythes, oh god no, they now use combines, plant fields in deserts, and can produce with a day's effort what couldn't be produced in a month's time back in the old days. People are able to be fed and thus starvation would be avoided if the implementation and the production of food is performed properly and in an earnest matter without having to "plant the most profitable type", dump food to increase prices, stock produce till they rot because of unfavorable market prices, without having to reduce the produce into capital for it to be distributed, etc. etc.
Now to continue, factories would be rampant, there would be pre-revolution and post-revolution factories built and expropriated from the bourgeois-rule era. This means that what will be produced would be varied and diversified and not limited to "what will be more profitable and sold", but will be subject to the condition of "what will benefit the society?". A textile factory will still produce textiles, a medical facility will still treat patients, and teachers will still teach students, just as farmers will still feed people.
"Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them."
That is true. You have just contradicted yourself on the matter of coercion, individual rights, individual liberty/freedom and agreed with Garret who said "Normal people won't generally respect property rights unless forced to by coercive means, either by the state or sufficient use of arms by the "property owners"".
False. In a moneyless society, based on workers and the needs of the society before the interests of a small minority, there would be no need, incentive, nor even an existence of what we currently call "theft". Why? Simple. First of all, there would be no money, that in and of itself is a basic deterrent to such a crime. What thieves will steal cannot be liquidated into currency and allow them to buy other items of luxury or need, so they will be stuck with what they stole. This leads us to the second point, what they stole, seeing as there is no reason to steal it and no ability to liquidate it into currency, will then result in that thief having to keep it in his home as it is. No problem? On the contrary, let us suppose that person X stole a TV from his neighbor Y. Person X goes through a lot of planning, moral complications, effort and trouble attempting to break into neighbor Y's house to steal that TV. Why would person X do so when he can simply be given a TV free of charge on condition that he contributes himself to the community he lives in? People steal out of need, why would they steal something if they already have it? Complex reasons can be summarized into need, I do not see an already wealthy person who has everything he needs start stealing because he felt like it (unless he is a kleptomaniac and that falls into "mentally ill" or the very rare cases for some reason that the immensely rich steal - such as certain celebrities). Most thieves are basically working class people who cannot afford to sustain a respectable living and have to then resort to other means to sustain themselves. With a moneyless system, one that follows Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", there would be no valid incentive for people to steal. What their neighbor has, they already have.
"... They ensure, in a free market economy, that "wage-slavery" doesn't happen"
Are you kidding me? How can a bourgeois-worker relation NOT exist in a Capitalist system? That's the lousiest "argument" that I have every heard. Do you mean to say that workers will manage their own workplaces without the existence of bosses, or that workers will be replaced by robots/machines? Otherwise, there is not alternative to employing workers and thus resulting in what we call wage-slavery.
"I said this myself, previously - and someone aptly raised the point that there may be non-unionists and unemployed who will quite happily work for what the unionists and strikers are not content with. This is how a free market "controls or suppresses" (though it's not an inherently desirable end from society's perspective) unionism and striking. Of course, there must be a thresh-hold at which none can be satisfied - and this is the point at which "wage-slavery" is shown to be a false concept.""
What you are trying to say is that scabs and strike-breakers will exist without restrictions? Really, are you just trolling or are you simply that weak? Scabs and strike-breakers will result in the unionists and strikers jobless and workers' rights heavily and negatively affected in favor of lower wages paid to the scabs and more restrictions put for future employees a la Industrial revolution era. There needs not be more said concerning this pitiful and disgusting matter. Wage-slavery is shown to be a false concept? Oh really then, please do enlighten us about how a worker is not forced to work for a pathetic wage in order to live, exploited by the bourgeois, paid a small wage while what he produces is worth way more, having the fruits of his labor forcefully taken by a non-participant parasite that did not even produce a single product.
"Freedom of association, freedom of property, freedom of speech, etc. Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom. That's what regulatory bodies are kept for - in order to prevent those who would actively deprive others of freedom from actively depriving others of freedom."
Wow. I've debated with many Cappies, but you seem the most lacking insight into the theory you uphold and the most ignorant of the basics of them all. I'll start here: "Basically, freedom to do anything but actively prohibit others from enjoying their freedom." by replying with "Any system that supports any sort of property rights, either individual- or group-based, needs to enforce them." To enforce these rights is to coerce and limit physically and intellectually others from what is meant to be free to all: property. What right has anyone to claim property and restrict it from others to use?
Land and property have long existed and will exist and outlive every one of us, even the property-holder. How then can he lay claim to what is not his? A worker cannot "enjoy his freedom" when he is forced to toil and work all day long in order to put the most basic food on the table, sometimes even staying days without food to assure that he can enter his kids into school, pay his bills, or even buy a car. What freedom is there, if you have to restrict yourself from many luxuries and indulges when he has to work daily for a small wage while his boss gets all of the profits made, which equate more than what the worker will make in a lifetime? "When you Capitalists speak of freedom, surely you do not speak of the freedom of the worker and the starving millions."
Furthermore, the freedom to choose your slave-owner/boss/master is the same, as I had said time and time again, as the mentality of the Christian's god-given freedom, the same freedom as that of which a person claims to give whilst pointing a gun to your held should you refuse what he has to offer. Regulatory bodies, as advocated by certain strands of Capitalism, are formed of "voluntaryist" and "cooperative" people (bourgeois) and their lackeys (private security forces/armies/gangs). These regulatory bodies are not limited nor restricted by anyone except other such organizations. Seeing as X corps does not see to it as his interest to fight against an oppressing Y corps, Y corps would be free to oppress, ravage, and exploit the workers of its companies and sectors. That is a very simple sentence concerning the issue without going into detail.
I reject democracy as a useful tool other then ot say it should be employed after a market test or on small small scales. We do things backward or atleast attempt to relegating market decisions secondary to decions made through state elites or through democracy.
And yes I’ve read about the dialect and how capitalism is a necessary stage meant to instantiate exploitation which will eventually yield socialism and eventually communism but I reject steady state economics and accept Von mises’s economic calculation argument so any workers revolution will not get passed the stalin/lenin stage. Conditions change and capital needs to change hands when there is institutional failure.
That being said, anarcho syndcalism or workers democracies would not be stable because human capital ( skilled labor) will attempt to get better deals for their labor and negotiate at other syndicates. Tehre will always be inequalities in skill level and these inequalities will result in indivdiuals pursuing better deals by defecting from syndicates. So even if we were in a state of syndacalism it would move back toward capitalism. The only way to prevent this is with an institution that defies exit and eliminates the ability of indivudals to negotiate for better standards, this is by all estimations labor slavery.
Here Marx again was innovative with regards to “class interest” but was to conservative with his estimates. It’s not that classes are at war with each other, its’ that all individuals are at war with other individuals or are attempting to exploit each other at all moments in time. Some of the most intimate relationships in nature are subject to exploitation between parent and offspring. It is not an issue of class its’ an issue of individuals struggling to enhance their own fitness. Marx’s conflict theory is just a very overly optimistic variation of evolutionary biology and Darwin is much better at explaining exploitation here then Marx will ever be.
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/249.short <--- you will never be rid of exploitation. It's here to stay and only correct institutional arrangments will mitigate the problems it creates.
Competition is unavoidable and humans are predatory to other humans, I desire a system where I have rapid defection capabilities from others and I can punish them on a second to second basis when I believe I’m being injured by them. "From those with the greatest ability to those with the greatest need" does not satisfy this requirement but enslaves me to unrestrained positive freedom of everybody.
Freedom must be both positive and negative and the demarcations of freedom are designated by property claims in large social systems or if it's an olstrum-eque polycentric or common pool resource there are clear demarcations and we are not talking about large scales here.
Knowledge isn’t centralized. Entrepreneurial actions are critical to market discovery and termination of socially unecessary industrial endeavors(see china's housing boom, or USA's subprime debacle). By relegating entrepreneurial function to the state your just making politicians entrepreneurs however their capital source is not subject to performance and they cannot be forced out of the speculative game as fast when their investment philosophy fails to anticipate changing conditions.
This has to big to fail and rent-seeking written all over it. There is an inherant collective action problem here. You will not transition to a stateless society by empowering teh state and controlling it because you(the proletariot) are at a disadvantage to institutions that will capture regulators or political agents. You cannot control the leviathon with democracy. You need to interface faster with your institutions, you need EXIT and not just VOICE. Having a super state will not usher you into a communist utopia.
That is to say this is a question about instituttional interface. What is teh best way for individuals to interface with their institutions. The left tend to be overy optimistic about democracy. I would say democracy must subject it'self to teh verdict of objective reality(supply/demand) prior to it's utilization. Any way its just another way to represent demand and according to Condorcet and Arrow you will not even be able to extract out majoritarian preference in a contest between 3 choices. That is democracy is intransitive and collectives have no will. Preference is an individual phenominon even when it's manipulated. <-- though you might agree here given that marxist literature is individualist in some respects.
Again I’m rejecting the incentive structure of democracy. Democracy emasculates the public I just don’t accept it as a reasonable methodology relative to having scalar voting power that is subject to performance.
Also it's clear your married to this idea(just as im' married to mine) and i knwo i wont' change your commitment to socialism. Fundamentally i'm a libertarian and i dont' have a problem if you want to throw all your stuff in a pile with other peopel and share it, infact i think you should do that, just dont incorporate me into this social arrangement. If you desire something from me other then cathartic political dialogues on message boards you have to sacrifice somethign to get it, you must provide me value. Unless you wnat to hold a gun to my head.
Also wanted to add the freedom to chose your jailer is superior to the inability not to. Which is to say i'de rather have to chose between the lesser of two evils of an employer then by subjugated in some mass democratic fuster cluck(that was intentional) where everybody is enslaved to everybody else and state agents have the most autonomy.
Small scales of democracy will be used in communes, cities, or towns. That is to say on a local scale, which is small enough, and in the workplace. Democracy will not be as it currently is, a national phenomenon, it will be more decentralized and on a smaller scale affecting a single community. I do not see a problem with it really, it's a very good way to obtain a collective decision, we aren't able to suit everyone's needs nor are we able to find out what each individual wants and needs, especially in times demanding urgent results. I support consensus decision-making over direct democracy on the community scale and in certain situations. Please do point out and explain your reasons for your opposition of the democracy (non-representative) and propose a valid alternative, I'm interested.
I am not very knowledgeable of Mises, I will then gladly retract from a debate on the subject. But please, do explain how a bottom-up non-statist revolution lead and organized by the workers themselves will not get past a "statist" Stalinist/Leninist stage. As I have said, I know next to nothing of Mises and as a result I am earnest in my question. Till I know more or you can explain to me said argument, I will withdraw from this specific point.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, too, is a temporary stage that seeks to reach communism. It is normal for individuals to seek better deals for their labor, that is expectable, but that is basically it. These individuals are part of a unionized country of many such syndicates that have abolished the bourgeois or bourgeois control of the workplace. That is to say that these individuals will apply to work in another syndicate, unless he travels where then he will return to the much hated bourgeois wage-slavery. He, of course, would rather not go back to the "old days" and would prefer to find an alternative in that community by join another syndicate that suits his needs and/or requirements. Now of course, we haven't even discussed whether these syndicates are under a general union council or not, in which case the actions and choices of that individual leaving for a "better paying" syndicate is adjusted to a certain extent. He will certainly have a number of reasons for leaving the first syndicate, these reasons or issues can be "fixed". He can appeal to external syndicates, the people, other workers if his current co-workers are "bullying" him. The factory/workplace would then be put under certain external pressures through boycotts, strikes, whatever till the issue is dealt with. The reasons and issues are many, we cannot then simply claim that an individual will always desire "more" and thus would simply quit his job for that simple and basic reason. Instead, he would work harder to improve production, to increase shipment, and vote to change certain aspects of the workplace that he so hates. For at the end of the day, what he and his co-workers make will strictly go back to them and to them only, not some external stranger. I see no problem here.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the individual who desires more due to skills or other defects from a syndicate, there will be others there to replace him as well as his co-workers still being there and still capable of recruiting or working harder. If that business were to not be successful due to the defection of that person, the workplace would be either closed, propped, or the workers moving to other workplaces but that is far-fetched but not impossible.
"So even if we were in a state of syndacalism it would move back toward capitalism."
Now that is a far-fetched conclusion to make. Rarely anyone would desire to work for a boss for a very low wage when he can work for himself with his co-workers for the full profits to themselves.
Yes individuals are currently in a competitive society constantly at war with each other, but Marx had divided those individuals into two main groups that he intends to speak of: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. By speaking of these two classes as conflicting, he can then continue to explain the basics of the ideology of his. Work takes a lot of time and effort as well as space in people's lives, that is why it is considered a main conflict that is occurring, between the workers and their exploitative bosses.
You are speaking of the parental-offspring relationship, as can be seen in that article you linked. That has nothing to do with what Communists strive for nor what Marx spoke of: the boss-worker relationship. Communists neither seek to end exploitation nor oppression derived from the many, many conflicts in the world in the form of the parent-offspring relationship, sibling conflicts, and neighborhood conflicts. No, Communists seek to end a number of conflicts and the focal one being the previously stated boss-worker relationship. We do not really strive to end problems between a parent and his son, oh no, nor are we even attempting to produce intellectual and physical equality. That is simply very hard to achieve and not the main point that we strive for, and giving such an argument of exploitation done by the parents on their children is as far and out of topic as arguing to a vegetarian how aliens abducted Elvis. But yes, a change of system from competition to cooperation as well as reforming the vast majority indirectly by giving them enough time and the capabilities to take good care of their offsprings and more time to rest their heads, a change in the many institutions and relationships of oppression will either cease to exist or be significantly reduced. Less pain of the uncertain tomorrow, less external pressure, and more time to rest would definately change the moods and actions of many over-stressed angry workers.
Competition, of course, is unavoidable but it can be drastically altered and decreased if the newly bred population is taught to cooperate and care instead of compete to be the most successful at the expense of others. In a system of severe competition, both economical and social, children and thus people will inevitably and undoubtedly be competitive, self-interested, and uncooperative.
Actually, forced positive freedom is better than the lack of or shrugged positive freedom. If you are forced to aid your a poor person, then that is by all means better than barely, if ever, aiding him when you choose to. I do not see anything negative concerning the forced positive aiding of others, I'd be cooperative with such a mentality of mutual aid. Instead of leaving a poor man to die on the street, I would then be "forced" to help him, that is to say if your mind does not directly "force" you to do so.
Should you not be happy with helping others and achieving mutual aid, then please do not speak more of this for you seem to be very self-loving and feeling too self-important to do so.
No, by enforcing higher taxes on the Capitalist sector, the entrepreneurs as I said, would be discouraged from investing, propping, and entering the market place through new businesses due to the disadvantages in face of them. These taxes that are extracted, would then fund the communist sector and improve it till it is later capable of reaching a respectable size to move on. That is actually part of the S.O.M.E. theory advocated by certain Leninists and is not a universally supported strand, Socialism as I had said, is up to debate concerning the ways it will be implemented and the way it will function.
I am not supportive of such a state as can be clearly seen, but I will continue. It is possible and expectable to transition to a stateless society through the utility of a state, but it is not very desirable to do so due to the possibility of corruption and treason of the officials in power. Democracy, worker organization of the workplace, alternative work with no susceptibility of bowing your head to a boss, ability to be propped by the state or others should you not be able to work, strands of the state controlled by the votes of the people, etc. Enough to claim practical or basic control of your community and certain aspects of the state. Remember, I am not supportive of a state and a Marxist-Leninist would better explain the in-and-outs of the proletarian state better than I. A super centralized state is supported by Stalinists, remember that.
Democracy is the best way to take decisions on an equal basis and on fair leveled grounds without unequal influence taking hold of the decisions made. In a contest between 3 or more choices, the choice being the most voted for would be the "majoritarian" decision, or the one preferred. That is speaking without including any post-voting consensus decision-making, but simply a solid democratic voting process without any form of discussion and debating. Collectives actually have their will fulfilled through democracy, please explain how otherwise. I fail to see your point. Democracy does overtake the will and intentions of an individual, but so what? That is expected and is an inevitable consequence, but how then will the community be able to advance, progress, and take decisions on a community-affective action without going through the democratic process?
Please do explain what do you mean by "scalar voting power that is subject to performance" and the point you are trying to make, I will not be able to reply to a very vague sentence with terms that I do not understand until I understand what you mean by it.
Feel free to live in another country, no one would be restricting you from doing so. That or you can always participate in collective action, but you seem to adamantly refuse this due to certain beliefs of "self-importance" and self-love over the many, in which case as I said, you are free to live in another country. You will not be bound by anyone or anything.
Woah woah now, you just mixed everything into everything there. Freedom to choose your boss is not in anyway superior to getting rid of your boss and be free to do as you wish with your co-workers, with the ability to obtain all that you produce and decide on what happens to the workplace and yourselves instead of having to beg and plead a boss to install an air conditioner or better and safer equipment. A lesser of both evils in this situation, when you can get rid of the lot, is not an actual valid alternative anyone would go through unless he is too self-loving to be equal with others. Mass democratic fuster cluck? Wait, the number of wrongs in this claim is too numerous to speak of, but I will speak of some. What happens in the workplace, on condition that it does not negatively affect the community (polluting rivers, smog generating, etc.), is to be conditioned, decided, and managed by the WORKERS themselves and not any external interference by anyone. Same goes for communes. People participating and living in that certain commune alone have the ability to decide on what happens there.
Commune X is manged by people living in commune X and not by people living in Y. The democratic process, as a result, will not be a national phenomenon, it will be a local democratic process taken and made by the people in that commune to decide on what happens in their commune. If an obstruction or interference is being made by another commune, negotiations can then be made on a quasi-"local" scale, but still it will no longer be a national parade as it is now. State agents? There will be no state agents in a communist society, nor will there be a state, centralized or not. No one is enslaved to anyone else, knowing that the disagreeing individual can always voice his opinion of objection and even leave the commune to another one that would suit his views and beliefs.
My belief based on observation of individuals, my own personal behavior as well as research on this subject, specifically risk-offsetting requires me, for my own love of freedom, reject this. It is clear to me that the phenomenon of need is not itself sufficiently described by the word it is meant to communicate the incidence of the event. Need can be a requirement that emerges from actual events, but need can also have a positive supply elasticity. That is to say the more aid that is available the more need will come into existence.
Need itself can be an economic output and to creating a positive feedback system of ever-growing dependence I think institutions like the welfare state are corrosive. A system with proactive impositions increases the supply of aid and thus will increase the output of need and dependence and lack of autonomy will become optimal economic strategy.
No I shouldn’t and I will attempt to explain why.
This is a meaningless signaling game that does not scale. I am “of-course” self-loving and do not need to enhance my “proto-market-value”, social currency, or reputational profit in a global economic exchange system as we exist in today. My ability to survive is not dependent on how effectively I can deceive you into believing that I care about you or individuals less fortunate. Social valuation is based on my ability to produce value in a market place rather than engage in primitive “reciprocal altruism” Trivers, 1971 necessary to support a tribal system.
In fact the problem here is to qualify for tribal evaluation we need to be self-loving anyway because aggregating into groups enhances survivability. This brings into question the fidelity of any signaling attempt of any individual who advertises they are altruistic or care about others. In small tribal systems this is a critical to stabilize groups and ensure cooperation.
You are well aware that I do not need to qualify for this particular social “stress-test” to not only survive but to thrive so yes I’m “self-loving” and “self-important” and I will still eat tonight, as well as next week and next month and next year. I don’t have to earn my survival via lies and deception about how much I love and care for others, in fact that is an existence that is somewhat perverse despite being the human condition and the normal course of business in simpler social systems like communes or tribal systems.
I make no distinction between this signaling game and NYSE investors salivating over oil gains or the euphoria experienced when an addict fills his veins with heroin. All are methods to pursue one’s interests but whereas the former are obviously selfish, to a blatant degree, the later(altruistic signaling) is an artifact of proto-market cooperation that can, in very large social systems where the perceptual horizon(of individual minds) does not extend to the same magnitude as the cooperative exchange nexus, be utilized for deception and extraction of unwarranted social currency, respect, reputational gain etc. To elaborate it costs the pro-social advocate nothing to make statements or gestures about how we should be altruistic, yet there is potential to gain reputational payouts here, and as such it is a form of free riding in society because scales exceed the capacity of individuals to monitor if the individuals are practicing what they preach. Knowing the former two are atleast somewhat "honest" and the later is less verifyably so says something about the virtue of altruistic signaling in general.
In addition that the poor and miserable are typically employed as a means of amplifying the effect as to the point that the poor are less likely to be able to remunerate the aid given and the signaling purpose would have parity with the handicap principle(evolutionary biology) in that the individual signals they have so much abundance of resources, or in this case compassion and willingness to give by implication of targeting the poor.
This suggests to me the poor are nothing more than raw material for the putative altruist or progressive to demonstrate their compassion and extract reputational payoffs. In tribal economic orders this would not be so bad as they would be constantly under pressure to balance accounts but in a large economic orders this is disastrous as the poor are not under direct social pressure to do so. Furthermore the primary beneficiaries are the political class transforming the poor into a form of political capital. As such we can see a problem emerge as the political class and altruistic signalers can support socially destructive wealth transfers and benefit from this, either psychologically or politically. As such game theory demonstrates that not all selfish behavior is good, in this case altruistic signaling is very bad and we must design our institutions carefully to ensure that one economic stratum is not utilized for teh spiritual or political gains of another rendering the optimal strategy to generate more and more poor and more and more misery like one of Mother Theresa's wards of suffering.
Whatever the case I find signaling of this nature a game and a game meant to obtain favor from the listeners and for that reason I don’t’ find it reasonable to play in these social markets trying to enhance my spiritual capital structure, despite my lack of participation I will still eat tomorrow.
Everything underlined is something thats been achieved, in bold are things more and more people want, and both underlined and bold are things that are being attempted. Think hard when you read these. I'm sure you'll recognize a few things.
Capitalism with very little government regulation (pure captialism but with minimum wage and some safety/health laws)
I don't get the point....
It is obviously written by someone very infatuated with the anti-Communist propoganda of the time.
It has nothing to do with recent events, nor does it reflect actual Communist theory.... simply ignorant rantings of some poor brainwashed individual.
If that movie describes "capitalism", then I must be using some wierd dictionary. I found it odd he compared a state sponsored economic system, with heavy regulations to capitalism.
http://anarchyinyourhead.com/
http://www.strike-the-root.com/
http://mises.org/
No one is attempting to deceive anyone, when we speak of the workers and the poor, we do not speak of them as mere "political or social capital" to bewitch the listeners, as you so claim, oh no. When we mention these people, we speak as advocates for their emancipation and their release from these physical and social bonds that they are trapped in, be it thanks to the bourgeois or thanks to the economical pit they are in. Why else do you think we intend to achieve a moneyless egalitarian economy that puts the control into the hands of the workers themselves? I hope you do not think there is some Illuminati NWO plot that those "commies" support to take over the world and turn us all into brainwashed slaves. It is not sentimental side-talk of which we speak, as I have said, it is the main reason for our support of Leftist ideology. Need I even explain this?
No one is forcing you to submit to any social "stress-test", that is one reason why you are so: self-loving and egotistical. Being that you are on a completely opposite pole than us, that is a main point where our ideologies differ. You certainly do not think that we speak of workers' emancipation and providing well-being and the basic needs to people just for an economical theory or for self-interest?
Certainly no one is either claiming that personal survival is balanced on whether you aid others or not, for you clearly cannot look beyond your nose and that will not seemingly change. Food not bombs, never heard of it? I myself take part in such organizations, but whether I can prove it or do so is besides the point and it will change next to nothing.
"This suggests to me the poor are nothing more than raw material for the putative altruist or progressive to demonstrate their compassion and extract reputational payoffs. In tribal economic orders this would not be so bad as they would be constantly under pressure to balance accounts but in a large economic orders this is disastrous as the poor are not under direct social pressure to do so."
Oh on the contrary, you take our claims of solidarity with the workers and the unfortunate as attempting to lull the populace to our side and do otherwise? Hah, right. We personally do not gain anything out of doing so, what we strive for will not really even benefit us, we are capable of living normally and come from homes with acceptable living standards and education. We'd be losing if we are advocating such an ideology as communism if we are to give up property, money, and time to achieve a better alternative to the **** that people live in. If I were then to be personally interested in myself, and myself alone, I would have ventured into the Capitalist economy and attempted to defend my right to jerk off to the mirror and shrug off the masses in favor of living happily at the expense of other hard-working people. For, if I were so, I wouldn't be here speaking of the workers, but I would be speaking of "individual (personal) freedom" over social and mass freedom, and attack any attempt at progress from a dog-eat-dog cannibalistic system to a more human, fair, and egalitarian system for no reason other than to keep what I own from the hands of others.
What you seemingly do not understand is that under communism, centralization would be abolished and dispersed into federal communities organized and managed by the workers. These communities (or communes) would be on a small scale, but numerous. This prevents centralization, social/economical/political monopoly on the lives of the citizens and the neighboring people of that commune. Not only that, but doing so in this fashion would enable the people to take decisions concerning them, and themselves only rather than having external "political agents" decide for them.
There are no beneficiaries from achieving communism other than the poor working men themselves. We communists do not gain anything positive from doing so except a sound mind or "fighting for what is right" and that is equality and the right to live, for we already have all we need. The poor are not being transformed into political capital, for they are the people being addressed themselves, not bargaining chips that go along behind the scenes. Read any communist book, you will directly see that it is either speaking of workers' emancipation or addressing the workers themselves and not preaching one thing while doing the other.
Socially destructive wealth transfers? The only socially destructive wealth transfers that exist are the bourgeois-worker relationship and the economical and social devastation and inequality derived from your beloved economical system of competition: Capitalism. Reforms attempting to "heal" the damages inflicted by such a system as Capitalism may actually do more damage to the general population as a whole due to economical reasons or others, and for that very reason a system overhaul needs to take place, one where no pitiful reforms are made and then redacted. To achieve communism is the final hopeful end to the strife of the poor and the workers alike, not because I say so, but because it is so, go read books speaking of communism and what they attempt to achieve.
You will still eat tomorrow but others will not. You are happy with this, others are not. See the difference here? Good. When you are able to eat while others cannot and be happy about it, that is the scourge of humanity and the core of the egotistical Capitalist. That is the very thing we seek to put an end to, whether you wish to call it altruistic and sentimental or not does not even change the fact or the goal that is being sought to achieve.
That is , by my estimation , a tremendous gambit. And with all investment strategies I wish you luck but I just don’t’ have any confidence, as i stated with regards to risk-offsetting which doesn't have anything to do with capitalism, in your pitch, I’m sorry. For more on this return look for Peltzman effect of risk offsetting.
Well I’m agnostic atheist so not only do I refuse to mine for social currency, but I refuse to attempt to extract celestial assets as well.
That may or may not be the case what is clear is that this remains to be seen and further more when I speak of reputational payouts that were critical for survival in simple social systems they needn’t be marshaled by cognitive processes that are necessarily conscious to the organism deploying them as psychological tools meant to obtain economic advantage in primitive social systems. The problem here is biological self-deception “If... deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray — by the subtle signs of self-knowledge — the deception being practiced.” Robert TriversThis is what i didn’t make clear. Teh notion that the moral outrage on teh left needn’t be a strategic deception that is consciously available to teh leftist deploying it but that it is instigated via emotion and self-deception to instigate behaviors that facilitate the accumulation of social capital in simple tribal systems.
Money is memory and is immutable to society.
Systems without money are possible only in the sense that memory can facilitate an evaluative function. Money and memory are essentially the same thing ( i believe). In small social systems money is equivlent with reputational gains, or social currency or concepts like honor, respect etc. As you scale the social order in complexity and size human memory limitations begin disrupt the ability to assign value to agents within society who are engaging in cooperation( i can't knowing reward or punish a person in china for the good or bad products he's provided because i'm not aware of their existence as i am aware of the tribal hunter i see daily in a simple tribal commune). Money presents an image of past dealings which game theory illustrates is the foundation of cooperation with one of the more stable strategies the "tit for tat" strategy.
http://minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr218.pdf
If you can cull back society to a simple pre-industrial tribal relations money simply becomes internalized within our own heads. Also this puts into perspective that the components necessary for the proto-economy like honor or respect might have a limited horizon of usability in a global exchange system where billions are cooperating and we might want to rethink their usage in extended social orders. Social currencies may still be rather effective in limited and non-complex interactions where we have proximity and continuous dealings with individuals.
If we really consider money and it's neurological/psychological analogues it seems we have never really been without it, it has just changed in substance.
No I don’t subscribe to any conspiracy theories and I think leftist and egalitarian sentiment and methodology is operational in how the values they hold, I just believe it’s a primitive form of market fundamentalism based on social currency. When dealing with complex capital markets and intangible assets that aren’t based on social status they are psychocologically uncomfortable. I don’t share this discomfort.
Then what is the purpose of this ? why communicate this notion The fact is that i want a more mutually cooperative society but not for the sake of others but to take advantage of knowledge dispersal and decentralized information. That we try to shame each other to force a descend back into a primitive echange methodology and somehow graft these tribal dynamics over a over an extensive global system is just not productive.
So what? How am i supposed to react to these words, if you expected shame or anger it's not there. That you say call me these things seems to be a matter of fact no different then there is a keyboard beneath my fingers now and thus totally immaterial.
Or Are you saying you want me to direct compassion outward ? Would that not decrease my utility and potentially enhance yours, especially if we are dealing with small social scales? What makes you any different then somebody trading corn futures then if you can somehow coopt my reasoning to make me act more altruistic then its’ possible that you can become the beneficiary of such actions especially in tribal systems. If moral outrage is instigating this horizontal social assault then we can see how robust a system proto-markets really are and why socialist notions are so hard to stamp out of existence, because they were so profitable in primitive social orders.
Unless i missed a deeper meaning with teh attempt to use invective ( if that was the intent) i see no point in calling me egotistical , self-loving, and stating facts about reality that we agree with.
Considering the costs incurred for making statements I see no direct sacrifice on the part of the advocate.
In an evolutionary sense aiding others was critical to survival, especially in chimp societies. Those that do not share their food are beaten and attacked until they do(they are free-riding off the division of labor and many eyes surveillance that the social system offers), or they may be that free ride are ostracized.
You don’t’ feel better for doing it ? I mean think about it ? when people engage in charity or help others do they feel good after they do so or feel terrible ? I have personally witnessed inumerable events where an indivdual is castigated for selfish behavior and that castigation is charged with passionate emotion to the same extent that it would be if you were personally attacking somebody with threat of phsyical violence.
This is all I really have time to respond to but I wanted to get to the issue of signaling behavior specifically because it’s been of interest to me as of late with regards to its implications on political behavior and ideology. I appreciate the vigorous response and wish I could return the favor and respond to everything in the spirit of debate, though debate tends to polarize individuals even further I understand. Anyway I would recommend checking out Von Mises’s calculation argument, there must be a few youtubes of this by now, I would also consider looking at Arrow’s impossibility theorem or Condorcet’s paradox(a mathematical paradox that illustrates you cannot obtain majoritarian preference in a contest of more then 3 selections), the paradox of voting. Also you meantioned something about pollution an negative externalities. I would recomend Garrett Hardin's Tragedy fo the commons for that. I will try to return to this again thsi weekend by i have exams comming up and have spent alot of time on this already :sad.gif:
As of right now I still think egalitarianism/progressivism/ and leftism in general are artifacts of proto-market signaling behavior meant to stabilize cooperation through aid based transactions which preceded the necessity of capital markets or property regimes.