I think the common thinking goes along the lines that money is a root of a lot of our problems, so there would be no currency.
How is this not a blatant form of central planning?
I think you’re wrong about that, but there are too many examples to rebut everyone, so care to give me some specific examples of where something will always be in a state of scarcity.
I’m not sure which countries you are referring to by ‘non-capitalist societies’.
Care to give me some examples of where syndicalism misallocates resources?
Thanks.
In the same way that anarchism is not an example of a political party. It is the negation, or absense, of something - that thing in this case being an economy.
“I’m not saying that ‘political standing’ has anything to do with capitalism, nor am I saying that capitalism tells us how to live our lifes. I’m saying that the capitalist structure, you know, the structure which states that one class - the oppressed class - has to sell their labour to the capitalist class or they starve or go to jail, is authoritarian by nature; and for that reason capitalism rests on the authoritarian right.”
Well the use of the Marxian example compared to the capitalistic system surely implied that what you meant was that capitalism not only mentions how to attain ends but also how one should attain ends because that is exactly what Marxism tries to justify in their philosophy and economics. So if that wasnt what you meant by politico-economic, then we can both agree to ignore the comparrison, since it is faulty…
But I ask this: how is your vision of anarchy not a politico-economic stance? Can you agree to some econ law ( do X and you’ll attain Y) ? But also, you advocate a stance in telling people what to do. (you Should do X)
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you.
An alternative to selling labour would be not having to sell labour, instead we would do things because we wanted to do them. The selling of labour would be taken out of the question, and so would any need to earn ones subsistance.
You could argue that someone could generate their own substistance, through growing their own food, building a shelter and so on. But in reality, this isn’t practical, not in today’s society anyway. But even if it were practical it would be a significant reduction in the standard of living, I mean, not all of us are doctors who have the appropiate medical equipment, nor are all of us capable of building sufficient housing and so forth. So I would say that we are forced into selling our labour, at the very least to survive, and at another level to keep a certain standard of living - even although that standard of living is not brilliant.
The corporations which control the nations debt, I think in your case that’s the federal bank (which is actually privately owned), also control the people; either do as you’re told or lose your house. It wouldn’t take much.
I have answered the last question in other posts.
Everything will always be in a state of scarcity. There will always be less stuff than we would prefer. If we are inefficient in the production of refrigerators that means we can afford less health care because both require the same resources.
Non-capitalist societies are the roughly five sixth of humanity that do not have capitalism and did not participate in modern economic growth until recently.
Misallocation of resources: You have to read about the calculation problem to understand this one. Here’s a former post of mine on roughly the same debate.
No, it is exactly the opposite. No offense, but you really have to learn some economics before you try to understand problems like that. The profit motive drives entrepreneurs to use cleaner energy, as they have done for centuries. Abolishing the profit motive would mean we are stuck with fossil fuels. Evidence: Those countries that most heavily rely on the profit motive also use the cleanest energy.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
“I’m not saying that ‘political standing’ has anything to do with capitalism, nor am I saying that capitalism tells us how to live our lifes. I’m saying that the capitalist structure, you know, the structure which states that one class - the oppressed class - has to sell their labour to the capitalist class or they starve or go to jail, is authoritarian by nature; and for that reason capitalism rests on the authoritarian right.”
Well the use of the Marxian example compared to the capitalistic system surely implied that what you meant was that capitalism not only mentions how to attain ends but also how one should attain ends because that is exactly what Marxism tries to justify in their philosophy and economics. So if that wasnt what you meant by politico-economic, then we can both agree to ignore the comparrison, since it is faulty…
But I ask this: how is your vision of anarchy not a politico-economic stance? Surely, you agree to some econ law ( do X and you’ll attain Y) but you also advocate a stance in telling people what to do. (you Should do X)
[/quote]
Not really. That’s partly the thing I am saying, you know, you don’t have to do anything and you will still get X. And like I said earlier, an anarcho-syndicalist society would only be created if the people, the majority, said that’s what they wanted - there would be no telling of what to do. I guess it’s a good idea to think of anarcho-syndicalist ideas as a outline of a at least decent society.
Well, lets say the majority wants your vision of anarchy… now you tell all businesses that they should run a certain way or that they should accept this new system. and not only that but you are also telling the minority, that did not want the system to begin with, that they must accept this system, since the majority ruled in favor of it.
That isn’t true at all. For example, if we used nuclear power, solar power or geothermal, we need never worry about energy again. With that all transport and everything which requires energy need not worry about energy ever again. I don’t know enough about refrigiators to comment on that.
If I’ve understood the calculation problem correctly, then I don’t think it is as big a problem as you make out; but admittedly it still is a problem, but I don’t think it is beyond the capacity of the human mind. Decisions I would think, would be made democratically by those who are affected. Whether it is more rational to produce 1000 barrels of oil or 1000 bottles of wine, I don’t know; it’s hard to say without looking at the actual situation.
Sorry, but you seem to be comparing capitalist countries with either other capitalist countries or countries which use a mixed economy, so it is hardly evidence that capitalism leads to cleaner energy than syndicalism.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Well, lets say the majority wants your vision of anarchy… now you tell all businesses that they should run a certain way or that they should accept this new system. and not only that but you are also telling the minority, that did not want the system to begin with, that they must accept this system, since the majority ruled in favor of it.
[/quote]
Firstly, that’s called democracy. Secondly, no one would be telling anyone what to do, they wouldn’t need to. For example, what business is going to stay open when all their staff have walked out, or taken control of the means of production and demanded change?
Chris, I suggest you read this novel: http://mises.org/books/time-2.pdf - it discusses in depth the problems of economic calculation without market prices.
Thanks. But wouldn’t it just be simple to explain it to me.
1.so democracy is a system where the minority and people that are opponents of it are forced to believe in simply because the majority believes in it?
2.and of course you are telling people what to do… clearly not all workers will advocate this policy, so you are telling them to now accept such policy.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
1.so democracy is a system where the minority and people that are opponents of it are forced to believe in simply because the majority believes in it?
2.and of course you are telling people what to do… clearly not all workers will advocate this policy, so you are telling them to now accept such policy.
[/quote]
Democracy is a system where everyone has equal power, and with that the majority vote wins. And I don’t see what you are complaining about with (1.). I mean, in a capitalist society it is the minority vote which dictates law; you know, whoever controls the debt controls the country.
Obviously, for democracy to be true, if people wanted to set up a capitalist society then they could do that. But I don’t think many would do that once they saw a syndicalist society. But ultimately I believe in self-determination, which means if the minority vote weren’t happy, they would be free to try and set up their own society. But I highly doubt that would happen.
But, I mean, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you have the same problems. What do we do with the people who don’t want to work? Well in your case, they either starve to death, or are thrown in jail or whatever.
“Democracy is a system where everyone has equal power, and with that the majority vote wins. And I don’t see what you are complaining about with”
the clear fact that the majority can never justify an act is my problem…If there was an election in whether to kill redheads and the majority says yes, then the killings would be justified… that is not a system in which i support…
“I mean, in a capitalist society it is the minority vote which dictates law; you know, whoever controls the debt controls the country.”
if you are refering to countries, then you are critiquing State capitalism… I do not support state capitalism…
“But I don’t think many would do that once they saw a syndicalist society. But ultimately I believe in self-determination, which means if the minority vote weren’t happy, they would be free to try and set up their own society. But I highly doubt that would happen.”
All this is simply assertion… nothing more, nothing less…
“But, I mean, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you have the same problems.”
Whats the ‘same problem’ that anarcho-cap and your anarchy share?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
“Democracy is a system where everyone has equal power, and with that the majority vote wins. And I don’t see what you are complaining about with”
the clear fact that the majority can never justify an act is my problem…If there was an election in whether to kill redheads and the majority says yes, then the killings would be justified… that is not a system in which i support…
“I mean, in a capitalist society it is the minority vote which dictates law; you know, whoever controls the debt controls the country.”
if you are refering to countries, then you are critiquing State capitalism… I do not support state capitalism…
“But I don’t think many would do that once they saw a syndicalist society. But ultimately I believe in self-determination, which means if the minority vote weren’t happy, they would be free to try and set up their own society. But I highly doubt that would happen.”
All this is simply assertion… nothing more, nothing less…
“But, I mean, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you have the same problems.”
Whats the ‘same problem’ that anarcho-cap and your anarchy share?
[/quote]
And that is why for the most part you would only vote on things which directly affect yourself. And generally speaking, most people don’t want to go on killing rampages for the sake of it.
No, I was referring to the international bankers who own the private banks which our governments and ourselves owe money to.
‘But, I mean, in an anarcho-capitalist society, you have the same problems. What do we do with the people who don’t want to work? Well in your case, they either starve to death, or are thrown in jail or whatever.’
(Hint: The Answer is in bold)
The point is that you were saying in anarcho syndicalism it is not necessary to be “compelled” by whatever to work. You always get all goods the society can produce for free. But as you noted yourself, this only works in a post scarcity world. This means if you switch to anarcho syndicalism yet there is no post scarcity world suddenly and I hope that you agree (even if your worldwide super-conspiracy is true about worldwide suppression of super-technologies that make resources and energy abundant) not within the next 10, 20, 50 or maybe 500 years. This would need time! This means people have to work or shopping shelves will be empty during this time. As you stated yourself people don’t do jobs (which might be at the moment about 95% percent!) they don’t like naturally if they haven’t to give something in return for the goods they want. So nobody would do the necessary work now anymore, because he can consume for free everything and how much he wants.
So what would you do with me if I chose not to work (although my work is highly needed) and I just take from the scarce goods and energy (that I make even scarcer by choosing not to work) produced while laughing about those dumb suckers who still work dutifully?
Well, I think you’re wrong about somethings you’ve said. But I’ll run along with this one.
Assuming that everything you said is right - the only way we can survive is by working. I think a lot of people would then work off their own back, I mean, like today the only way to survive in capitalist society is by working, getting money and then buying food and paying rent or whatever - that shows that we will to some extent do those mundane tasks to survive. But in an syndicalist society, that work would be shared and wouldn’t be exploited. That, I guess, would be the ideal.
The other extreme is that no one works, which I don’t think would be the case, but then we all starve to death. So, either we live freely, or we die freely.
“And that is why for the most part you would only vote on things which directly affect yourself. And generally speaking, most people don’t want to go on killing rampages for the sake of it.”
Say that to the Jews in Europe in the 1930-40s… or the State’s justification in killing criminals… Nevertheless, if you disagree with the justification in killing the redheads, then you disagree with the main principle of democracy… why would you support such a system if you are against its priniciple?
“No, I was referring to the international bankers who own the private banks which our governments and ourselves owe money to.”
do you mean central banks? they are far from being a purely private institution. Which is why most of us here advocate ending of the Fed (federal reserve)
I do not think that the problem with people not working is the same problem as people not accepting your system… And I do not advocate throwing people in jail because they dont want to work, what an absurd comment…
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
“And that is why for the most part you would only vote on things which directly affect yourself. And generally speaking, most people don’t want to go on killing rampages for the sake of it.”
Say that to the Jews in Europe in the 1930-40s… or the State’s justification in killing criminals… Nevertheless, if you disagree with the justification in killing the redheads, then you disagree with the main principle of democracy… why would you support such a system if you are against its priniciple?
“No, I was referring to the international bankers who own the private banks which our governments and ourselves owe money to.”
do you mean central banks? they are far from being a purely private institution. Which is why most of us here advocated ending of the Fed (federal reserve)
I do not think that the problem with people not working is the same problem as people not accepting your system… And I do not advocate throwing people in jail because they dont want to work, what an absurd comment…
[/quote]
You have to understand the political, economic and social background for what the Nazi’s did; or look at Milgrims study. But when people aren’t compelled to pick the ‘right team’, then generally they don’t advocate the elimination of a race.
Well, all of them - the IMF, the World Bank and so on, they are all in it for profit.
But you advocate them starving to death? That is if you accept pure capitalism, without a welfare system of any kind. Well either way, you have the same problem. What do we do with people who don’t want capitalism? Well, you don’t do anything to take into account their interests. Nice one!