[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
if there was no profit incentive and capitalism there would be no risk, as there is no financial motivation, just the want to produce in abundance.
[/quote]
If there is no profit incentive capital is not efficiently allocated and you have no idea whether you create wealth or destroy it.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
CAPITALISM 101: the capitalist system purposely underproduces, to keep scarcity levels, thus raising value and not flooding a market.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Every “capitalist” has millions of competitors that would immediately move into the market if he tried to do that.
Either capitalists are greedy or they are not, make up your mind. [/quote]
The goal is to eliminate the capitalist system, not make individual capitalists less greedy.
[/quote]
Your point was that capitalism produces artificial scarcity.
Nevermind that compared to any period in history it already has created abundant wealth, you are describing a world where capitalists do not compete.
Yet, capitalists fail all the time.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
people who keep confusing what Anarchism is, watch that short video, then ask, once you understand the system.[/quote]
So, its a pipedream with no idea how to get there.
Cause all the pesky details, he adresseth not.
He just wants people to work less and play music in beautiful parks.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
if there was no profit incentive and capitalism there would be no risk, as there is no financial motivation, just the want to produce in abundance.[/quote]
Personal question.
If you’re proposing that people naturally want to produce in abundance, what are you doing spending so much time arguing on here?
Especially when you could be out there, producing in abundance? Unless that’s not really what you want to be doing.[/quote]
God your the thickest person i have ever encountered, NO I can not produce in abundance, I DO NOT OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION YOU IMBECILE!
No I did not say people want to produce in abundance, I said people want to have all needs for a great life in abundance, thus the way to do this is for the people to take control over the means of production, without imposing false scarcity or producing for profit, the people could produce far more productively and reach a state of post scarcity.
You really need to use your head, it is just so embarrassing to read your posts, at least thunderbolt does not sound like a four year old trying to put together a lecture on quantum physics with a shit filled diaper.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
CAPITALISM 101: the capitalist system purposely underproduces, to keep scarcity levels, thus raising value and not flooding a market.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Every “capitalist” has millions of competitors that would immediately move into the market if he tried to do that.
Either capitalists are greedy or they are not, make up your mind. [/quote]
The goal is to eliminate the capitalist system, not make individual capitalists less greedy.
[/quote]
Your point was that capitalism produces artificial scarcity.
Nevermind that compared to any period in history it already has created abundant wealth, you are describing a world where capitalists do not compete.
Yet, capitalists fail all the time. [/quote]
Because capitalism revolutionaised the feudal mode of production, it is better than any system we have had, however it is still evil, oppressive and wasteful and under productive, compared to what a production system could be.
Capitalism was an amazing leap forward from feudalism and the guild system, now it can be surpassed by Anarchist production.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
people who keep confusing what Anarchism is, watch that short video, then ask, once you understand the system.[/quote]
So, its a pipedream with no idea how to get there.
Cause all the pesky details, he adresseth not.
He just wants people to work less and play music in beautiful parks.
[/quote]
LMAO of course He wants people to work less, if things like advertising, celebrity fashion and all other non productive jobs were done away with the workforce could produce things we need and want, unemployment under Anarchism would be done away with, so a workforce of billions making clothes, food, laptops, cars, houses, keeping roads, public spaces etc would mean short workdays, more time living life and being happy.
Simple mathematical equation really bro!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
people who keep confusing what Anarchism is, watch that short video, then ask, once you understand the system.[/quote]
So, its a pipedream with no idea how to get there.
Cause all the pesky details, he adresseth not.
He just wants people to work less and play music in beautiful parks. [/quote]
Probably the biggest flaw in his presentation of community-based decision making is that he implied people will actually be in agreement about things.
Many neighborhood communities in resort areas are responsible for their streets and water, a common good. Have you ever seen these people argue? Have you ever seen how hard it is to actually convince everyone in the neighborhood that it’s time to replace the water pipes to their household coming from the community well? We’re talking pipes that are literally rusting and staining laundry. Not even 15 people can agree on the right solution to that.
It’s idealism, and I agree, it’s a very nice dream, but it just doesn’t jive with reality.
Lorez, under capitalism people would never work together as the video states, because capitalism sows greed, alienation, division and selfishness, if however social relations were changed, private property and the monetary system abolished, people would have a very different approach.
remember than conditions are what create us, if your in a selfish greedy, out for yourself environment, your going to take on certain personal characteristics of no fault of your own.
Also before someone goes no private property, so people will just steal toothbrushes FTW , private property relates to the acquisition and domination of wealth, does not mean people wont own their own house or car or photos or clothes.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
if there was no profit incentive and capitalism there would be no risk, as there is no financial motivation, just the want to produce in abundance.[/quote]
Personal question.
If you’re proposing that people naturally want to produce in abundance, what are you doing spending so much time arguing on here?
Especially when you could be out there, producing in abundance? Unless that’s not really what you want to be doing.[/quote]
God your the thickest person i have ever encountered, NO I can not produce in abundance, I DO NOT OWN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION YOU IMBECILE![/quote]
You have the means of production for writing computer software sitting in front of you. A novel. Lyrics.
Do you have the means for producing a crop of wheat? Probably not. But you could be writing music.
Actually, I thought you said: “if there was no profit incentive and capitalism there would be no risk, as there is no financial motivation, just the want to produce in abundance.”
[quote] You really need to use your head, it is just so embarrassing to read your posts, at least thunderbolt does not sound like a four year old trying to put together a lecture on quantum physics with a shit filled diaper.
[/quote]
You haven’t once addressed my repeated statement about scarcity. What commodities would be in abundance if not for capitalism?
If it weren’t capitalism’s fault, would everyone have a car, a laptop, a huge mansion, a yacht?
I’m seriously asking you.
What does making music have to do with producing material products for our well being?
YES, creating a post scarcity society means producing an abundance of produce, YOU IMBECILE!
ALL commodities would be in abundance, as there would be nothing to make them scarce, no economic crash, no purposely under producing, workers production levels would soare because they are not working because they have to to be paid, they are working for themselves, family and friend, they are working to better their conditions.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
What does making music have to do with producing material products for our well being?[/quote]
Last time I checked, well being had to do with more than just material products. Immaterial goods can contribute significantly to a person’s well being.
Why are you reverting to ad hominem attacks? I asked a question. Your definitions for the same terms are (obviously) different than mine. I could call you an imbecile too, but that doesn’t get anywhere.
When I say “means of production”, I’m talking about the means of producing a good that someone else wants. I’m not talking about “growing food”. If you were talking about growing produce, then say so… but keep your definitions consistent.
Especially when I showed the quote where you claimed you didn’t say something you actually said.
Again, I want your definition of commodities… because I can’t tell if you think a yacht is or isn’t a commodity.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
What does making music have to do with producing material products for our well being?[/quote]
Last time I checked, well being had to do with more than just material products. Immaterial goods can contribute significantly to a person’s well being.
Why are you reverting to ad hominem attacks? I asked a question. Your definitions for the same terms are (obviously) different than mine. I could call you an imbecile too, but that doesn’t get anywhere.
When I say “means of production”, I’m talking about the means of producing a good that someone else wants. I’m not talking about “growing food”. If you were talking about growing produce, then say so… but keep your definitions consistent.
Especially when I showed the quote where you claimed you didn’t say something you actually said.
Again, I want your definition of commodities… because I can’t tell if you think a yacht is or isn’t a commodity.[/quote]
I have no interest in making music, if i did i would, because you have no logical points your going on some tangent about how I could be making music, which I have no interest in doing.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
What does making music have to do with producing material products for our well being?[/quote]
Last time I checked, well being had to do with more than just material products. Immaterial goods can contribute significantly to a person’s well being.
Why are you reverting to ad hominem attacks? I asked a question. Your definitions for the same terms are (obviously) different than mine. I could call you an imbecile too, but that doesn’t get anywhere.
When I say “means of production”, I’m talking about the means of producing a good that someone else wants. I’m not talking about “growing food”. If you were talking about growing produce, then say so… but keep your definitions consistent.
Especially when I showed the quote where you claimed you didn’t say something you actually said.
Again, I want your definition of commodities… because I can’t tell if you think a yacht is or isn’t a commodity.[/quote]
pretty sure you have insulted me for pages and I only now started treating you the same way brother.
However yes, I sincerely apologize for calling you names, I don’t want to put negative energy out there for no reason, please forgive me.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
pretty sure you have insulted me for pages and I only now started treating you the same way brother.[/quote]
I wasn’t aware I insulted you. I mean that in all seriousness. I disagreed with things you said, but I didn’t know I insulted you.
If you don’t mind, could you point it out to me where you thought I insulted you? That way I can better understand what you found insulting.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
CAPITALISM 101: the capitalist system purposely underproduces, to keep scarcity levels, thus raising value and not flooding a market.
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Every “capitalist” has millions of competitors that would immediately move into the market if he tried to do that.
Either capitalists are greedy or they are not, make up your mind. [/quote]
The goal is to eliminate the capitalist system, not make individual capitalists less greedy.
[/quote]
Your point was that capitalism produces artificial scarcity.
Nevermind that compared to any period in history it already has created abundant wealth, you are describing a world where capitalists do not compete.
Yet, capitalists fail all the time. [/quote]
Because capitalism revolutionaised the feudal mode of production, it is better than any system we have had, however it is still evil, oppressive and wasteful and under productive, compared to what a production system could be.
Capitalism was an amazing leap forward from feudalism and the guild system, now it can be surpassed by Anarchist production.
[/quote]
If anarchist production is so much more productive, why does it not outcompete companies run by capitalists?
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
people who keep confusing what Anarchism is, watch that short video, then ask, once you understand the system.[/quote]
So, its a pipedream with no idea how to get there.
Cause all the pesky details, he adresseth not.
He just wants people to work less and play music in beautiful parks.
[/quote]
LMAO of course He wants people to work less, if things like advertising, celebrity fashion and all other non productive jobs were done away with the workforce could produce things we need and want, unemployment under Anarchism would be done away with, so a workforce of billions making clothes, food, laptops, cars, houses, keeping roads, public spaces etc would mean short workdays, more time living life and being happy.
Simple mathematical equation really bro!
[/quote]
Where is the equation?
You are also only describing how great it would be, you do not propose a way to get there.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
Also before someone goes no private property, so people will just steal toothbrushes FTW , private property relates to the acquisition and domination of wealth, does not mean people wont own their own house or car or photos or clothes.[/quote]
Ultimately that means that people will not own their own bodies and minds which is THE tool of production for most people.
[quote]BonnotGang wrote:
I have no interest in making music, if i did i would, because you have no logical points your going on some tangent about how I could be making music, which I have no interest in doing.[/quote]
My only point was to understand what you meant by “I’m spending time on the computer arguing, because I don’t have any means of production”. I presented my side of it, saying that you do, in fact, have means of production. Your counterargument seemed to state that “means of production” only included “means of producing produce”, not “means of producing a good that society desires”.
Society desires music. You may not desire music, but other people do. People are even willing to pay for it. You’re not producing music and you could be. But you’re not interested.
So to some extent, you’ve kind of hit on a very major point there when you mentioned the concept of “interest”.
I don’t have an interest in growing produce. In a capitalist society, if someone were to pay me to grow produce (and pay me more than what I’m doing now), I’d grow produce, even if I’m not interested in it. I am “rewarded” for doing something against my interest, via money, which enables me to purchase goods and services that are in my interest.
You can say that’s exploitative, because I was paid less than what they got from it; but the transaction works both ways. To them, the produce was worth more than the money. To me, the money was worth more than the time and energy to produce the produce. If both parties didn’t perceive value in what the other was offering, the transaction wouldn’t occur.
While certainly the same “if you do this for me, I’ll do that for you” transactions can occur in non-capitalistic structures, capitalism sets the terms up very clearly.
In a community-based model, if I don’t do work, I might get kicked out. But… if I only put in a 50% effort, I might not get kicked out. In a sense, I get 100% of the reward for 50% of the effort.
Capitalism sets the terms a bit more clearly. If I only put in a 50% effort, I will only get 50% of the reward. If I put in 100% of the effort, I get 100% of the reward. Then, if I have to pay community dues to stay in my current community, I have a fixed price, and I pay that. If that’s the only thing I need money for, and I can get that by putting in a 50% effort, I might as well do just that. Or, I might do a 100% effort and save the money. The choice is mine. The costs and rewards are simply more overt in this case.
Now to bring it back to the “making music” topic. If you knew that you might get kicked out of the community if you didn’t make music, would you make music? What if that was your expected role in that society?
Some people will hopefully get to do things they enjoy and are interested in to support the community, but very few people will be interested in taking out the garbage. What is the incentive – if not financial – for someone to do that? Is it a threat of expulsion? I don’t know, I’m just guessing. So I’m asking… what is it that will incentivize the work to be done? Who determines whose responsibility it is to do what work?
It is my belief that the majority of mankind wants and deserves an absolute state, one of crushing tyranny and total surveillance. They don’t want to think…they want to be robots. Our elite is granting them their wish. Afterall, what is religion other than the desire to give up thinking, to hand your mind over to some magical beings and their representatives here on earth, the ones with the ‘secret knowledge’ from the magical fairy books?
The few amongst us who actually do want to think should live in isolated pockets and the government leaves us alone, as long as we don’t bother them.