|
But how can we assume all employment arrangements are voluntary, when you yourself said in this thread that the ruling class have used coercion to grab all the wealth and resources for themselves? If we abolished all labor laws and corporate welfare and subsidies tomorrow, the copper miners wouldn't compete on an equal playing field with the copper mine owners with an equal chance to own the mine. Your millionaires and billionaires already own all the mines so if you're a miner you have no choice but to work for them.
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But how can we assume all employment arrangements are voluntary, when you yourself said in this thread that the ruling class have used coercion to grab all the wealth and resources for themselves? Yeah, this digs to the heart of my objection- if one person owns a copper mine and another owns jack poo poo, the person with the copper mine has way more power than the one with jack poo poo. The amount of freedom the worker has to actually choose in these situations has entirely to do with how much property they themselves own. In essence, libertarianism gives the propertied class absolute dominance over society without any fig leafs to anything else.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2020 23:57
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Imagine a scenario where you have co-ops, syndicalist communes and traditional employer-employee relationships existing simultaneously. That is what I'm proposing. My system would permit the existence of all three as long as each is voluntary. My understanding is that anarcho-syndicalists and libertarian socialists would outlaw the traditional employer-employee relationship since they consider it to be inherently exploitative. All of the stakeholders in a co-op or commune get a voice in the structure of the organization, and they can change it however they want. The members could, if they chose, vote to invest power and ownership in a single owner if they felt it was in their best interest. But in a "traditional" employment structure, only one person gets a say: the owner. The workers in a traditional company have no way to convert the business into a co-op/commune if that's what they want instead. Collective bargaining could be effective, but in your dream-world there's no protection for it so the owner will just call in the Pinkertons and crush the union organizers. And before you say that "oh, the workers will just leave and go join a commune", that's super dumb. Moving jobs has massive risks, and when people are getting paid starvation wages they generally don't have the option to go somewhere else. This isn't new, or hypothetical. What do you think happens when a company has the power to make all of its employees competely dependent on it? Do you think they all just quit and go work for a competitor? That really, really isn't how this works. Corporations are inherently anti-competitive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Imagine a scenario where you have co-ops, syndicalist communes and traditional employer-employee relationships existing simultaneously. That is what I'm proposing. My system would permit the existence of all three as long as each is voluntary. lol you loving dweeb I guess "I don't think in terms of systems" was just something you were parroting from somewhere else polymathy posted:My understanding is that anarcho-syndicalists and libertarian socialists would outlaw the traditional employer-employee relationship since they consider it to be inherently exploitative. You shy away from facts and evidence so you almost definitely don't have an understanding of these things. Socialism does not forbid the existence of traditional employer-employee relationships, it only really forbids capitalist ownership of the means of production - these are two very different concepts and it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand them, after all you don't even really understand libertarianism either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Like if I say "I really just want to be a cashier getting paid a regular wage" there's not going to be some socialist slapping the hat off my head and saying "no, I deny you that freedom". I'd still also be earning the excess value of my labor at Socialism-Mart instead of giving it to the owners of capital, but then I'd simply be giving that excess away for whatever reason; that's perfectly fine. I am more free because that choice is available to me, whereas it would not be available if I worked for Walmart
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:25
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Like if I say "I really just want to be a cashier getting paid a regular wage" there's not going to be some socialist slapping the hat off my head and saying "no, I deny you that freedom". I'd still also be earning the excess value of my labor at Socialism-Mart instead of giving it to the owners of capital, but then I'd simply be giving that excess away for whatever reason; that's perfectly fine. I am more free because that choice is available to me, whereas it would not be available if I worked for Walmart Yeah if you worked at a co-op getting paid the full value of your labor and you just decided you want to live on $7/hr and give all the surplus to the Walton family because you believe they're entitled to it, no anarchist is going to say "hey no you can't do that, we're passing a law against giving money to the company president" Capitalism is the system with laws forcing me to give up the value of my labor to the Waltons. If I take the full value of my labor from the till, the agents of the state will accuse me of stealing and come crack my skull open and throw me in a cage. The system without voluntary choice is the one we have now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:38
|
|
|
Hey, jrod... Did you know... That pure voluntarism... Is loving impossible?[1] [1] See: eating
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:In essence, libertarianism gives the propertied class absolute dominance over society without any fig leafs to anything else. This was the crux of my conversion, realizing that libertarianism requires a two caste society of owners and renters, and the only people with any rights are the owners. The renters only have those rights the owners allow them, and ... how is that freedom?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 00:59
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Like if I say "I really just want to be a cashier getting paid a regular wage" there's not going to be some socialist slapping the hat off my head and saying "no, I deny you that freedom". I'd still also be earning the excess value of my labor at Socialism-Mart instead of giving it to the owners of capital, but then I'd simply be giving that excess away for whatever reason; that's perfectly fine. I am more free because that choice is available to me, whereas it would not be available if I worked for Walmart My first job (weekends, aged 17) was for a co-op - a regional grocery store chain run by a mutual society with employees collectively having a ringfenced stake in the business and a suitable annual dividend. There was also a workplace democracy system in place where each year all the workers in our store elected a rep to liaise with the store manager and head office. Through the rep the workforce had the right to query (and in theory veto, if we really wanted to) appointments such as team leaders and the deputy manager. In theory there was also a mechanism to have the manager 'reviewed' by head office. The society's AGM gave the workforce the chance to vote on executive appointments, who was to be on various committees, broad policy decisions (along the lines of "the finance director says we can do X, Y or Z with this year's profits. He recommends Option X. Anyone have any other suggestions? Let's vote..." [Option X passes by a huge margin]) and so on. Promotions and executive positions were done in the normal way but above a certain level appointments had to be approved by the society as a whole at the AGM, with the appointee giving a sort of 'manifesto' as to what their experience/qualifications were, what they were going to do in the role etc. There was also some back-and-forth between the executives, the employees and the customers who were also society members with voting rights. The thing is, the majority of the workforce didn't really give two tiniest shits about all this. They just clocked in, did what the manager or team leader told them to do for eight hours and then clocked out and picked up a paycheck and some decent benefits at the end of the month, and the dividend at the end of the year. As far as most were concerned the workplace democracy stuff was confined to rarely-read announcements on a noticeboard in the break room, the monthly society newsletter which no-one ever read and using the workplace rep as a sort of more empowered HR person, which was fundamentally their main role. I only went to one AGM while I was working there because I'm a huge dork and was interested to see how it worked. And even I never really got involved in any of it. Fundamentally that job was no different day-to-day to working in an ordinary grocery store owned by a private corporation. But if I wanted to actually get involved and exercise a bit of agency over the place which, had I been a full-timer, I spent a third of my waking hours and was responsible for providing my income to enable me to stay alive, there was a meaningful and effective way of doing that. The idea that the only alternative to a private capitalist business with an employer/employee relationship is some sort of anarchist commune where there's no structure or hierarchy and everyone votes about absolutely everything, right down to the tedious minutiae, is an awful straw-man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 02:19
|
|
|
Golbez posted:This was the crux of my conversion, realizing that libertarianism requires a two caste society of owners and renters, and the only people with any rights are the owners. The renters only have those rights the owners allow them, and ... how is that freedom? I think I've seen libertarians come to that with the idea that renting is for idiots and you should buy your home instead, and ignoring the fact that landlords leverage their wealth to buy up housing at rates that renters couldn't possibly afford, trapping them within the landlord's dominion. And of course, homeownership in general these days leaves you in some kind of long-term obligation to a bank because technically the standard practice is to get the bank to buy a home (because most humans couldn't possibly afford buying a home outright) and allow you to live in it while you pay them back for the favor in a deal that usually gives you more rights than rentership but can still go horribly awry because of factors outside of your control and leave you homeless, as had happened en masse during the 2008 mortgage crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 02:21
|
|
|
Well why didn't you happen into more leverage over land in the first place then? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 02:28
|
|
|
I reckon if you took 100 people that represented wealth distribution of humanity (so there's one billionaire, two millionaires, three Americans, and a whole lot of people owning nothing and making less than $10 a day, then showed JRod he was in the top five due solely and utterly to the fact he was born to his parents, even old I Am Master Of My Own Destinyfeld wouldn't want to go in a random chance draw to pick a new spot in that lineup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 03:10
|
|
|
jrodefeld, it seems to me like a big problem in this conversation is that you have a different definition of "voluntary" than other people. So when you say you want a "fully voluntary society", but then you go on to describe how that society works, it doesn't sound fully voluntary to everyone else. At least it doesn't to me. I gather your definition of involuntary agreement is only those situations where someone is threatening to actively harm or kill you (or your property) to get you to agree. Anything else is fully voluntary, if I'm in a position of owning property that you need to live, then I can make you do whatever I want, but this is still voluntary because I'm only withholding things you need to live, not actively killing you with my own two hands. Even if I originally got that property by force, that doesn't matter, once I have it, and you need it, anything I make you do is voluntary (much like how you accuse the ruling class of illegitimately enriching themselves by wielding the violence of the state, yet you still insist that the people Jeff Bezos employs with his ill-gotten loot are in a fully voluntary relationship with him). I would say that if I agree to an arrangement under the threat of death from starvation or exposure, it's not a fully voluntary contract. How can you be free to say no, if other people control the resources you need to live, and you die if you don't do what they tell you? Yes, maybe you can get what you need from someone else, but that doesn't really solve the issue. If I put a gun to your head and say "agree to be my slave or I'll shoot you" and someone else says "agree to be my slave, and I'll prevent him from shooting you, and to make it worth your while my slave quarters are nicer", that doesn't seem any more voluntary to me even though I was allowed to weigh offers and take the better one. So, I have a voluntaryism thought experiment for you. Suppose that an army general overthrows the US government and establishes a dictatorship and conquers the world. He seizes all the land, water, resources, food, etc on earth, declares it his private property, and forces the entire population to work as slaves in inhuman degrading conditions. This dictatorship continues for say 500 years, passing down his title and his ownership of all land to his oldest child. Until one day, his descendant comes to power and she says, "unlike my predecessors, I do not believe in dictatorships. I am a Libertarian, and I am establishing a fully voluntary society governed solely by the Non Aggression Principle and by protection of private property rights. Therefore all you slaves are hereby free. And as all the land and resources on earth are my private property, which I legally inherited from my father, I will offer you your exact same jobs back that you did as slaves, in the exact same work conditions. You are of course free to reject this offer, there are no longer any restrictions on your actions, except that you may not violate my private property rights by trespassing on any of my land, or taking from any of the plants or animals that I own. You will work for me exactly as you worked for my father as his slaves, or the police will enforce my private property rights as you starve to death, since there are no restrictions on your actions other than respecting my legal rights of private property ownership, this society is fully voluntary and I look forward to your voluntary cooperation." Is this a fully voluntary society? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 03:23
|
|
|
Capitalist production incentivizes the highest possible rate of consumption, because the capitalist makes money on every unit consumed. If you are arguing that workers need to consume to live, that does not suggest they need to consume as much as possible, from a worker and consumer perspective, consuming as little as possible is desirable, why would you want to buy something that breaks down and needs replacing if you could buy something that lasts and can be repaired easily? That's very good for the consumer and worker in that the worker does not need to produce as many of them or purchase as many of them, labour has been saved, the only person who loses out is the capitalist, who no longer makes as much profit. Or perhaps the thing does not need to be produces at all, perhaps the thing is only produced and sold because even more labour is expended to market the thing and create demand for it out of thin air? Perhaps even more labour could be saved if the thing just wasn't produced or purchased at all. So I would argue that capitalism does not incentivize efficient production, it incentivizes maximum production even when the production could be reduced by making better products. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 06:05
|
|
|
It incentivizes efficient consumption
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 06:14
|
|
|
Caros posted:Faux? Dude, you just tried to undermine a chemical weapons attack by linking me to Alex Jones tier propaganda. I'm straight up pissed at you. Can you provide the evidence that Trump "coordinated and communicated with efforts of the russian state in order to increase their chances of winning the election"? The extent of what took place in 2016 was the same general level of influence peddling that Superpowers try to exert on their rivals all the time. The "Russiagate Narrative" that I consider a baseless conspiracy theory is the hysterical Red-baiting, irresponsible "our democracy is under attack" rhetoric that was a convenient excuse for the Democratic Party to NOT take responsibility for their lose and to reassess how they lost the working class. It was the endless parade of false stories that were demonstrably proven to be false without any real accountability for the reckless journalists who promulgated them. It was the stuff that real journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi, and many others spent the last four years debunking. What this comes down to is that the sources you're relying on are not very credible and are too close to Power to effectively critique it. If anything, the Russiagate debacle revealed the dire straights the the profession of journalism finds itself. Most journalists suck up to Power, write apologia for the CIA and the State and do the bidding of their funders. Muckraking journalists who expose government malfeasance such as the great Seymour Hersh are a dying breed, unfortunately. Whatever you think about Max Blumenthal and The Grayzone, to pick one example, these are people who make it their mission to attack the US Empire without apology. Aaron Mate, who I mentioned above, also works for The Grayzone and he won an award for his great journalism in debunking Russiagate. It's rather insulting for you to compare them to InfoWars and Alex Jones. Do they make mistakes? I'm certain they do. However I'd bet that the journalists who work at The Grayzone, at Consortium News, and many other outlets that I follow and have respect for, are right far more often than most Corporate news outlets. As far as The Grayzone promoting "propaganda about Assad" and all that tripe, here's how I look at it. I agree with Noam Chomsky that the primary role of any politically-aware person is to criticize their own government, NOT the government of some other country. I theoretically have some influence over the US government, but I have no influence over the government in Syria. Furthermore I'd argue that whenever the US Empire has it's sights set on regime change or other interference into the internal affairs of another country, you have a moral obligation to NOT say anything negative about the leadership of that country. To do otherwise is to aide the US government propaganda effort that will increase the chance that they'll be able to convince the public to support their imperialistic program. This is even the case when what is being said about a foreign leader is true, which is rare. Nobody is arguing that no chemical attacks ever took place in Syria at any time. What is being claimed is that the proof that Assad was responsible for the Douma chemical weapons attack is dubious. Prima facie, would you admit it makes no logical sense for Assad to have used chemical weapons? Assad was already winning the war. He certainly doesn't want the US government to interfere and overthrow his regime. And he knows full well that his use of chemical weapons would provide the perfect excuse for US intervention. So why do it? In any criminal investigation you need to establish a motive. Assad had none. It would have been the most foolish thing he could have possibly done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:17
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:Under our current system, efficiency = shareholder profits (and no, joe random who spends 10% of his paycheck on company stock is not a shareholder), not lower prices. Goods are priced at the maximum amount the market can bear, and prices have little to no correlation with what the goods actually cost to make. Value is subjective so of course prices don't correspond to the value of labor or the cost of capital goods. The only thing you can know is that the consumer price won't be below the cost of labor and capital goods. The final price of a product is based on what consumers are willing to pay for the products. That's it. If consumers choose not to buy a product because they don't think it's worth more to them than the price they are charging, shareholder profits will be zero. When laborers leave their jobs and go to the store to buy goods, they direct capital in their capacity as consumers. They also dictate prices because most people simply won't pay more than what they subjectively value different goods at. For example, if I open a Coffee Shop I can't change $20 for a cup of coffee unless I have a very compelling reason WHY it's worth that much. The subjective value that we all place on a cup of coffee is like $1.50, maybe $2, maybe $3. As powerful and large a corporation as Starbucks is, they aren't going to be charging $12 for a cup of coffee. They know full well that the public won't stand for it and they'd lose massive market share if they pulled a stunt like that. We can talk about the problem of monopolies and bailouts and things like that, but I'm describing the process of a fairly normal market economy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:29
|
|
|
Dumper Humper posted:Answer my question Okay, I'll respond. The problem with the term "slave-wages" is that it conflates slavery with voluntary choice. People go out and look for a job, and then they choose the best job that they can find. The fact that they don't have more job prospects doesn't mean that they are a slave for agreeing to work for someone for an agreed upon wage. At the very least you have to demonstrate why a low wage constitutes slavery. You can't just assert it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:33
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Okay, I'll respond. The problem with the term "slave-wages" is that it conflates slavery with voluntary choice. People go out and look for a job, and then they choose the best job that they can find. The fact that they don't have more job prospects doesn't mean that they are a slave for agreeing to work for someone for an agreed upon wage. What would you call a wage that is set just high enough to sustain life without ever providing the ability to do the things required to not be dependent on that meager source of money, was my question, which you still haven't answered And what power do you think people have in wage negotiations at the lower rungs, because if you think it's anything besides "none" you're insane. There is no choice. You get paid what they say you get paid and you take the job not because you want to but because you have to. Its about as free of a choice as one made with a gun to your head that will fire if you pick the wrong option.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:36
|
|
|
"people choose the best job they can find, and if they can't find a better job well that's too bad it's still a free choice to work for subsistence wages instead of *checks notes* dying of starvation"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But how can we assume all employment arrangements are voluntary, when you yourself said in this thread that the ruling class have used coercion to grab all the wealth and resources for themselves? Just because you have a lack of infinite choices doesn't mean you are a slave. In your example, a libertarian would have to first ask whether the copper mine owners acquired their property in a legitimate way (homesteading, contractual exchange). If they didn't and you can find someone with a better claim, then justice requires the property be redistributed. Let's say there are only ten companies that own the copper mines. You still have the choice of which of the ten you want to work for. The fact that you don't have 100 companies to choose from in that profession doesn't make you a slave. You can learn a different skill if you want even more choices. I never said all employment relationships are voluntary. The problem is that your ideology is assuming that they are all involuntary. I simply need to see the evidence that they are NOT voluntary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:39
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Just because you have a lack of infinite choices doesn't mean you are a slave. What if my choice is work for barely enough money to survive, or die
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:43
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Just because you have a lack of infinite choices doesn't mean you are a slave. In your example, a libertarian would have to first ask whether the copper mine owners acquired their property in a legitimate way (homesteading, contractual exchange). If they didn't and you can find someone with a better claim, then justice requires the property be redistributed. what if the people with the better claim are dead because the illegitimate way that the property was acquired was murder?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:48
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Value is subjective so of course prices don't correspond to the value of labor or the cost of capital goods. The only thing you can know is that the consumer price won't be below the cost of labor and capital goods. So, to be clear here, you are saying that you acknowledge that the cost of goods and the cost to produce those goods are largely decoupled, and thus when you said: polymathy posted:If companies are less efficient, then their products will have to cost more and less overall goods and services will be produced in the first place which hurts all of us. You were full of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 07:58
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Just because you have a lack of infinite choices doesn't mean you are a slave. In your example, a libertarian would have to first ask whether the copper mine owners acquired their property in a legitimate way (homesteading, contractual exchange). If they didn't and you can find someone with a better claim, then justice requires the property be redistributed. nine of the ten copper mines are located in a different country from me, and i cannot bear the costs of relocating? well, tough poo poo, kiddo, should have thought about that before you got born on Valhalla DRO territory
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah if you worked at a co-op getting paid the full value of your labor and you just decided you want to live on $7/hr and give all the surplus to the Walton family because you believe they're entitled to it, no anarchist is going to say "hey no you can't do that, we're passing a law against giving money to the company president" Okay, so let's say we live in a Left-Anarchist society. Suppose I have an entrepreneurial bent and a vision for designing a new kind of computer monitor. So for five years I abstain from consumption as much as possible and save as much of my money as I can. Suppose after that time I have $250,000 saved up. Then I use that money to buy some capital equipment, maybe some 3D printers, and I buy a factory where I can construct these things. Suppose I then want to hire some workers to help me manufacture these things. Your ideology would insist that I immediately give every worker equal ownership over my factory, and all the capital equipment and I can't make a profit or I'd have to share any profit I make equally with all my workers unless they democratically assent to my having a larger portion of the profit. Do I have that right? So what incentive would I have for trying to make my dream a reality? What incentive would anyone have for accumulating capital in the first place? We don't have too many people in the world who are brilliant and visionary, nor who have entrepreneurial forsight. Do we really want these people to be hamstrung by a democratic vote where even the most dimwitted worker has an equal say in how the business is run? That's not good for society. Furthermore, doesn't your theory imply that workers would have to share in the loses? Many companies have long periods where they take loses before they become profitable, and I'm sure many workers are happy they don't have to share in those loses. You said: "...if you worked at a co-op getting paid the full value of your labor and you just decided you want to live on $7/hr and give all the surplus to the Walton family because you believe they're entitled to it, no anarchist is going to say "hey no you can't do that, we're passing a law against giving money to the company president" Maybe this is a semantic difference but how is what you're describing different from me offering an employment contract that stipulates that I own the capital equipment and assume all the risk, but also receive the profits? Suppose there are co-ops all over the place that this worker could work at, but he chooses to work for me anyway. Do you have a problem with this? Or do you think that my owning of the capital equipment and ultimate decision-making power are illegitimate even if workers are happy to work for me under those conditions? Or do you think workers should have the right to arbitrarily break the terms of the contract at any time and seize ownership of my factory and capital equipment? If you believe this, then contracts will be essentially meaningless which is not a good basis for a functioning society. My last point is, why do you think co-ops aren't more common? I mean, they are perfectly legal in most capitalist societies. If this is such a superior form of organization why haven't they been able to flourish and succeed at a large scale? And why do workers, by and large, choose not to participate in them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:08
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Okay, so let's say we live in a Left-Anarchist society. Suppose I have an entrepreneurial bent and a vision for designing a new kind of computer monitor. So for five years I abstain from consumption as much as possible and save as much of my money as I can. Suppose after that time I have $250,000 saved up. Then I use that money to buy some capital equipment, maybe some 3D printers, and I buy a factory where I can construct these things. Suppose I then want to hire some workers to help me manufacture these things. lol you don't have a clue what society without private property means here's a hint: accumulating capital to purchase the means of production is not how your business would get started, since you can't privately own the factory in the first place
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:16
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Do we really want these people to be hamstrung by a democratic vote where even the most dimwitted worker has an equal say in how the business is run? you give a libertarian long enough, and the fear of those icky minorities counting the same as him always comes out to play
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:19
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:My first job (weekends, aged 17) was for a co-op - a regional grocery store chain run by a mutual society with employees collectively having a ringfenced stake in the business and a suitable annual dividend. There was also a workplace democracy system in place where each year all the workers in our store elected a rep to liaise with the store manager and head office. Through the rep the workforce had the right to query (and in theory veto, if we really wanted to) appointments such as team leaders and the deputy manager. In theory there was also a mechanism to have the manager 'reviewed' by head office. Okay, but then the question that arises is, why is this some great advantage if functionally the job was no different than working for a regular grocery store? You still have a tiny minority in positions of authority and the majority just taking directives from them not understanding or caring about how any of the business actually runs. At some point I'm not sure there is too much of a disagreement here. I want people to have the liberty to work at co-ops, but I also want an entrepreneur to have the ability to see his vision through with the potential of profits serving the function of justifying the risk necessary to realize his dream. A free market economy tends to produce a lot of good paying jobs that most people are perfectly happy to work at. The idea that most jobs would pay what you'd consider to be "slave-wages" is a fallacy. The problems with the current system of neo-liberalism and the financialization of our economy have everything to do with the massive distortions of our economic system by the Federal Reserve and the government.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:22
|
|
|
polymathy posted:So what incentive would I have for trying to make my dream a reality? What incentive would anyone have for accumulating capital in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:24
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Okay, but then the question that arises is, why is this some great advantage if functionally the job was no different than working for a regular grocery store? You still have a tiny minority in positions of authority and the majority just taking directives from them not understanding or caring about how any of the business actually runs. it is literally, mathematically, the nature of capitalism to accumulate capital in an increasingly small number of hands. regulation of the market is generally intended to slow or reverse this process so that jeff bezos doesn't get to own the planet. the failing of the neoliberal order is in deregulation - do you somehow think that business regulations have gotten tighter rather than looser over the past 40 years?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:27
|
|
|
polymathy posted:A free market economy tends to produce a lot of good paying jobs that most people are perfectly happy to work at. The idea that most jobs would pay what you'd consider to be "slave-wages" is a fallacy. Citations, please, and preferably something other than a speech Ronald Reagan made at a GE plant floor in the 1950's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:28
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you give a libertarian long enough, and the fear of those icky minorities counting the same as him always comes out to play The hilarious part is that within capitalism the least knowledgeable person in a business has final say on every practice. Stock holders and board executives have 0 factory experience, so why should they decide the safety protocols, wages, and general floor management that the workers must abide? They have no loving idea how the workplace functions because they’ve only been on a few loving tours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:37
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The hilarious part is that within capitalism the least knowledgeable person in a business has final say on every practice. Stock holders and board executives have 0 factory experience, so why should they decide the safety protocols, wages, and general floor management that the workers must abide? They have no loving idea how the workplace functions because they’ve only been on a few loving tours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:40
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Can you provide the evidence that Trump "coordinated and communicated with efforts of the russian state in order to increase their chances of winning the election"? The extent of what took place in 2016 was the same general level of influence peddling that Superpowers try to exert on their rivals all the time. What articles show that the hacking of DNC didn't have a negative impact?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:jrodefeld, it seems to me like a big problem in this conversation is that you have a different definition of "voluntary" than other people. So when you say you want a "fully voluntary society", but then you go on to describe how that society works, it doesn't sound fully voluntary to everyone else. At least it doesn't to me. No, it's not a fully voluntary society because the method of property acquisition is clearly unjust. Libertarian theory says there are only two ways of legitimate property acquisition: homesteading unowned virgin land or contractual exchange. In the situation you're describing, putting aside the fact that humanity could never survive for any length of time if one person owned all land, we know for a fact that the presumed "owner" of the land is illegitimate. I would immediately declare the property title to that land null and void, and announce that all land is subject to homesteading. Then all the ex-slaves would be free to go out and build houses, put up fences, and mix their labor with the land thereby establishing ownership over their portion of it. In contemporary America, and the entire world for that matter, there has been a lot of illegitimate property acquisition. The trouble is that there is no way to rectify all the past injustices if there's no way to determine how to redistribute land. Which land was stolen from whom, and to who does it belong? When you can determine these things, then redistribution is justified. Lastly I'll just ask why you think people who are fortunate enough to own some property would cynically weaponize that ownership to terrorize and enslave their fellow man? The idea that only a few people will own property and the masses will own none, and thus be forced to be slaves to those who do is simply not how the world works. Concepts like community, religion, charity, and civil society bind men together in groups with the goal of looking out for each other and providing mutual aid. As is usually the case, it is the State and the Cronies who benefit from the State that are the great violators of property and who continually redistribute wealth except they usually redistribute it to the top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:44
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Can you provide the evidence that Trump "coordinated and communicated with efforts of the russian state in order to increase their chances of winning the election"? The extent of what took place in 2016 was the same general level of influence peddling that Superpowers try to exert on their rivals all the time. Trump specifically, or the Trump campaign in general? The former, no. The latter, absolutely. This isn't watergate, where we're going to have Nixon talking about the conspiracy on tape because he thought it would never come out. Trump didn't specifically reach out and contact Putin with the direct goal of undermining the US elections, and most people who talk about this don't make that sort of claim. What we're looking at instead is a marriage of convenience, the Russians wanted to meddle in the US elections, and the Trump campaign was willing and complicit in accepting their help. This came both through direct sharing of information, such as manafort's connections with constantine kiliminick as well as through proxies such as the aforementioned wikileaks. This isn't really up for dispute, which is why it is so frustrating, much like your Douma bullshit. The republican senate put out a report saying essentially, 'Yeah, there were some seriously hosed up connections here' and the Mueller report likewise detailed a load of improper but not necessarily criminal behavior. To the point that this didn't rise to the level of criminal activity, I'd refer you to the 2008 financial crisis. What the banks did in that era was absolutely immoral, and in my opinion absolutely criminal. But when you get down to the brass tacks of it, the law is insufficient to deal with something of this nature, there is enough wiggle room, enough gray area that while guilt is obvious to a layman, criminal guilt is actually very difficult to prove. See also: The ongoing theranos trial. Just because the law does not offer sufficient remedy does not suggest that I have to shrug and ignore a political party working with a foreign government to undermine US electoral integrity. And no, this isn't just 'general influence peddling'. Like many things in modern political history, what Trump did here was essentially unprecedented. For comparison, In 2000 gore got delivered the Bush debate prep documents as part of some inside job. They turned them in to the FBI, because when an outside source is trying to gently caress with the election you don't work with them. quote:The "Russiagate Narrative" that I consider a baseless conspiracy theory is the hysterical Red-baiting, irresponsible "our democracy is under attack" rhetoric that was a convenient excuse for the Democratic Party to NOT take responsibility for their lose and to reassess how they lost the working class. It was the endless parade of false stories that were demonstrably proven to be false without any real accountability for the reckless journalists who promulgated them. Real question, what is your weird obsession with name dropping? It is loving weird that you feel the need to try and get clout through this poo poo. Doubly strange that you'd include people like greenwald and Taibbi as if I wasn't aware that they've spent the last four years tripping over their own dicks in defense of the stupidest poo poo. quote:What this comes down to is that the sources you're relying on are not very credible and are too close to Power to effectively critique it. The republican senate report and the muller investigation are what I'm relying on here. Do you have something better? quote:Whatever you think about Max Blumenthal and The Grayzone, to pick one example, these are people who make it their mission to attack the US Empire without apology. Aaron Mate, who I mentioned above, also works for The Grayzone and he won an award for his great journalism in debunking Russiagate. It's rather insulting for you to compare them to InfoWars and Alex Jones. Do they make mistakes? I'm certain they do. I compared them to infowars because they intentionally disseminate disinformation. They don't make mistakes, they lie. In their desire to attack the US Empire without apology they lie in defense of totalitarian dictators. quote:As far as The Grayzone promoting "propaganda about Assad" and all that tripe, here's how I look at it. Why do you put this in scarequotes. It is what they do. They lie about provable facts in order to prop him up. It is literally how they stay in business. quote:Furthermore I'd argue that whenever the US Empire has it's sights set on regime change or other interference into the internal affairs of another country, you have a moral obligation to NOT say anything negative about the leadership of that country. To do otherwise is to aide the US government propaganda effort that will increase the chance that they'll be able to convince the public to support their imperialistic program. Oh go gently caress yourself with an iron poker. US bad! What's that, China is engaging in a genocide? Well we can't talk about that because US BAD! A guy dropped chlorine gas on his own population? We have a moral obligation to lie about that. This is the dumbest post truth poo poo you've said in a long time. Yes, we get it, US bad. Other places are also bad, and saying that we have a moral duty to paper over warcrimes and human rights abuses is loving disgusting. quote:This is even the case when what is being said about a foreign leader is true, which is rare. You're literally arguing that the best thing for journalists to do is to lie. God you're a loving weasle. quote:Nobody is arguing that no chemical attacks ever took place in Syria at any time. What is being claimed is that the proof that Assad was responsible for the Douma chemical weapons attack is dubious. It isn't! Jrod, buddy, pal, fuckface. The claim is not dubious. He, or at the very least someone in the Syrian army he controls, did that. They dropped chlorine gas on civilians in order to provoke a surrender. The proof isn't dubious, it is overwhelming. This is so goddamn frustrating because at this point, you know you're wrong, you're just lying to me. You just said that you don't actually care about what is or is not true, you care about US BAD, and anything that anyone reports that comports with your axiomatic truth of US BAD is either true, or a useful lie. You're not arguing in good faith, you're arguing from a position of US BAD and anything beyond that doesn't loving matter. quote:Prima facie, would you admit it makes no logical sense for Assad to have used chemical weapons? Assad was already winning the war. He certainly doesn't want the US government to interfere and overthrow his regime. And he knows full well that his use of chemical weapons would provide the perfect excuse for US intervention. So why do it? Oh gently caress you. He did it because he could. Or because it forced the city to surrender slightly faster. Or because he knew Trump didn't have the balls. Or because some general went 'hey, we have these sitting around, lets go gently caress up some assholes with them'. I got about two paragraphs into explaining in detail how loving stupid the counterfactual here is, the idea that the rebels somehow staged a chemical weapons attack, but I realize that I might as well just scream at my wall for all the good it will do you. You don't care. You don't give a flying gently caress about people suffocating on chlorine gas. Because US bad. There isn't a thing on earth I could tell you that would remotely change your mind, because you don't actually care about facts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 08:46
|
|
|
Gabriel S. posted:What articles show that the hacking of DNC didn't have a negative impact? A negative impact to who? Wikileaks published true information about Hillary Clinton and the DNC that voters have every right to know. The question is not whether it had a big impact or a small impact. The question is whether there is proof that the hack took place by someone connected to the Russian government as part of a deliberate attempt to help get Donald Trump elected. That is the conspiracy theory and there is zero evidence to support this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
polymathy posted:Okay, so let's say we live in a Left-Anarchist society. Suppose I have an entrepreneurial bent and a vision for designing a new kind of computer monitor. So for five years I abstain from consumption as much as possible and save as much of my money as I can. Suppose after that time I have $250,000 saved up. Then I use that money to buy some capital equipment, maybe some 3D printers, and I buy a factory where I can construct these things. Suppose I then want to hire some workers to help me manufacture these things. It's almost like that... is the point? Perhaps instead you could find some people who would like to also make new computer monitors and work with them to set up a factory and you could all work there and divide the results equally, rather than you owning everything and telling everyone else what to do. That way nobody has to go without for years to "save up capital" and also the factory can be set up faster. Perhaps even during this process you might find that the other people have good ideas about how to improve the design you put forward and collectively you can make an even better kind of computer monitor. Seems to me like everybody benefits. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Sep 13, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's almost like that... is the point?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2020 09:19
|
|