[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Times are a lot different now than 10th century Spain. There is no purpose behind producing an Ipad…
[/quote]
10th century? What the hell are you talking about?
1936-1939[/quote]
Lol, it was the first date on Wikipedia. I guess that’s what I get. [/quote]
Fair enough lol
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
What incentive was there to work in catalonia during the anarchist phase? there is incentive to work so you can eat, get new clothes, have nice dinners at the communal restaurants, so they could have education and go to the pub and have sports events etc etc.
[/quote]
I don’t know anything about Catalonia. Do they produce anything other than essentials to survive? What sporting events? I hope it wasn’t European football run by capitalist states.
I disagree. If I can not improve my station there is no point in working hard, furthering my education, getting an education to begin with, taking a chance on innovation, etc…
Someone has to come up with “what get’s produced.” If that party doesn’t have incentive to innovate there will be nothing for the wokring class to produce in short order.
Hell, people today already accept “free” food and money to do nothing when McDonalds is hiring. You think all of a sudden people will have drive because they get a piece of what they produce. That already happens, it’s called a salary.
[quote]
Workers make everything in society, every single thing. We would have iPods and big ass TV’s, we just wouldn’t have a capitalist extracting surplus value off the workers who make it.[/quote]
Yes they do, but in almost every case it isn’t an idea/product they came up with. They also don’t typically know anything about producing, selling, marketing, etc… said idea/product. All they know is there single job (often very well).
They also don’t have the resources for R&D, unless you think farmers are going to give crops away for R&D, which 9/10 will produce nothing. [/quote]
I don’t know how to isolate things you said so I will just respond like this dude.
Yes they were former private owned teams, the footballers collectivised the team and the fans took over the stadiums.
Catalonia is in spain, it was Anarchist collectively run for a long time until the fascists with help from mussolini and air support and weapons and financial backing from Nazi Germany won the war against the republicans, communists, anarchists and other resistance groups. But a massive section of spain was ran along Anarchist lines without wages or police etc etc and it worked and productivity actually increased from its previous capitalist economy.
Again saying they don’t have the resources would be true in a capitalist economy, after an anarchist revolution there would be no currency and no capitalist enterprise, I am not saying workers should run everything in capitalism because obviously thats impossible, I am talking about a different economy, based on workers producing to provide what workers want. So everything we produce now and more, without the value system of capitalism there would be no impediment to producing as much as possible. No millions of tonnes of food a year dumped to keep illusory “value” systems capitalism has to enforce to keep the capitalist economy from tanking.
Again obviously none of what I said would work in a capitalist system. I am talking about a non monetary, non statist society.
we have seen it work in reality as I said for instance in catalonia, until it was crushed by the fascists. Ultimately it would have to be global like the capitalist economic system is now. I think it will definitely come about, maybe not for hundreds of years or until monopoly capitalism has breathed its last laboured breath, but i am sure we will see it.[/quote]
Have you ever done a single fucking thing in your entire life?
You sound like a fucking retard, and I mean that in the worst possible way. A complete fucking dumbfuck.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
You say Capitalism is the only economic system possible for a free society with a ton of confidence it seems, are you certain? How certain are you that the many examples of capitalism today bring about a free society? [/quote]
-I’m positive. What examples of capitalism today? The United States? LOL
When did this run begin? It certainly ended many years ago if it did begin. If voluntary actions are limited, then liberty does not exist.
Maximizing what most consider…does not equal liberty. Tyranny of the majority. Ever heard the phrase, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins?
That has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. If true, it just is.
Food stamps would not exist if we were free.
Life’s not fair. Nobody owes you a thing. Many cute sayings went through my head when I read that paragraph. Nobody is FORCED to make ends meet. Some are lucky enough to find enough work to survive.
In today’s America, it’s probably true that the wealthy have more freedom than the poor. We have laws punishing an almost infinite number of non-crimes, so of course those who have the means to get around the law are more able to do so. The answer is the legalization of all victimless crimes and crimes against the state.
I would love to get rid of minimum wage. I don’t at all want to get rid of housing, although getting rid of PUBLIC housing would be great. I don’t care for foodstamps. I’d like to see the GI bill eliminated immediately for anyone who hasn’t already joined the military with it included in his contract.
When something is freely traded for something else, that is completely compatible with capitalism/liberty. Currency should not be regulated by the state. I would not voluntarily give up any freedom for protection.
[/quote]
What is interesting is comparing a state of democracy and capitalism in countries that are on a bad track to our own nation, which is why I brought up Thailand initially.
When the poor are likely to stay that way, 80+% likely to stay that way it should be a bad sign to democracy loving Americans, as social and economic mobility are some of the more important facets to consider under a democracy.
If it looks like the situation will get no better for the poor, what does the poor class compare to historically? People still have the freedom to speak out, but lack opportunity to own land and are limited to laboring for the upper class. It’s more like such people work jobs to simply subsist, which is a lot like the old model for the poor under a different form of government… I’m saying that when the poor lose social and economic mobility the poor don’t have freedom. When you work to simply subsist, your definition as a laborer becomes eerily similar to that of a serf.
You know the reasons for things like child labor laws, the GI bill, minimum wages and the history of such. To ignore the why’s as to the reason they were put in place is pretty scary to me. I’m speaking as someone who believed in the American dream and is hopeful of it. My reality, the lens I look at the country from is that of someone who grew up poor, has always worked, and went to the military not FOR the GI bill but out of love for the country, the legacy of the men who served before me in my own family.
I fully get where you are coming from, what you want to do with things like the GI bill, housing, etc. represent to me a desire to remove all social and economic mobility for the poor. It’s not that I see housing and the GI bill as opportunity itself, but it provides people a small avenue to improve themselves that they otherwise wouldn’t have. Getting an education these days is insanely expensive without some sort of assistance. Making it requires education beyond high school and an advanced degree for the majority of well paying jobs out there, and knowing people or making connections with people in positions of power is the other aspect. If you are born wealthy and seek out an advanced education and other people in your immediate circle are also wealthy with advanced educations you are likely to be pretty successful.
In general I’m talking about avenues of opportunity for the poor, so I’m looking at the country from the back end. Where if you were born into money or are successful your priorities would be the upkeep of your profits as you see your right to money as your freedom.
There is, theoretically a medium where people can bring in good profits and at the same time there is social and economic mobility. Unabashed capitalism as you want it both helped grow the country into an industrial juggernaut, but they were also some of our darkest times as far as the health of our democracy during both industrial and guilded ages.
Do you see social and economic mobility as something even on your radar as far as health of our democracy and our freedom? Or is it purely tied to market and money?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
What incentive was there to work in catalonia during the anarchist phase? there is incentive to work so you can eat, get new clothes, have nice dinners at the communal restaurants, so they could have education and go to the pub and have sports events etc etc.
[/quote]
I don’t know anything about Catalonia. Do they produce anything other than essentials to survive? What sporting events? I hope it wasn’t European football run by capitalist states.
I disagree. If I can not improve my station there is no point in working hard, furthering my education, getting an education to begin with, taking a chance on innovation, etc…
Someone has to come up with “what get’s produced.” If that party doesn’t have incentive to innovate there will be nothing for the wokring class to produce in short order.
Hell, people today already accept “free” food and money to do nothing when McDonalds is hiring. You think all of a sudden people will have drive because they get a piece of what they produce. That already happens, it’s called a salary.
He’s 21. What is there you don’t know when you’re 21? It’s the smartest you’ll ever be in your lifetime; you’re practically a fucking guru.
Humble yourself and learn from him.[/quote]
Well look at all the classy responses to his historic example. He cites a legitimate example from the past and all of you turn into a bunch of old bitties. You too Fooshin.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Well look at all the classy responses to his historic example. He cites a legitimate example from the past and all of you turn into a bunch of old bitties. You too Fooshin. [/quote]
Negativity aside, the example is not legitimate, at least from what I’ve read.
We are talking about a 3-4 year period during wartime. The sample is too small and too specific for analysis.
How would the same model work over a period of 50 years, during peacetime, and with an economy 1,000x larger? It is extremely hard to say.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Well look at all the classy responses to his historic example. He cites a legitimate example from the past and all of you turn into a bunch of old bitties. You too Fooshin. [/quote]
Negativity aside, the example is not legitimate, at least from what I’ve read.
We are talking about a 3-4 year period during wartime. The sample is too small and too specific for analysis.
How would the same model work over a period of 50 years, during peacetime, and with an economy 1,000x larger? It is extremely hard to say. [/quote]
precisely.
His example, to use a sports analogy is like saying “Emmitt Smith broke of a dive for an 80 yard run for a touchdown on the second play in the first quarter. Therefore in order to win the game, all we need to do is run 22 dive for every offensive play for the remainder of the game.”
It is a silly, silly attempt to try and prove something works. In the macro, no reasonable person could conclude that the system could work spread out to larger, diversified populations, based solely on the example itself. Too many variables to take it serious.
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
Thats you being insane again.[/quote]
Dat Ad hom.
Dat Ad hom.
Dat Ad Hom
[quote]You a couple pages ago
You can’t address the point so you say things about the person who said them
you page later
Karl marx was a self hating jew.
IRONY. Understand it for goodness sake.[/quote]
Well, if my unflattering, yet true, description of marx was used to argue with Marx, then you might have a point.
But, alas, I was speaking with you, and others who are alive and posting in this thread. So my assessment of Marx, really isn’t all that ironic. Seeing as I was just pointing out that the man wasn’t really all that great of a person, and maybe we shouldn’t be bringing him up and using him as some example as to which realistic ideas should be discussed.
A man’s character does play a role in the validity of what they purport to be true. Sort of like how you have to read Jefferson’s writing on liberty from a different perspective than someone typical of contemporary America, because of his slave ownership. One needs to read Marx from a perspective of “this guy, wrote that?”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Well look at all the classy responses to his historic example. He cites a legitimate example from the past and all of you turn into a bunch of old bitties. You too Fooshin. [/quote]
Negativity aside, the example is not legitimate, at least from what I’ve read.
We are talking about a 3-4 year period during wartime. The sample is too small and too specific for analysis.
How would the same model work over a period of 50 years, during peacetime, and with an economy 1,000x larger? It is extremely hard to say. [/quote]
precisely.
His example, to use a sports analogy is like saying “Emmitt Smith broke of a dive for an 80 yard run for a touchdown on the second play in the first quarter. Therefore in order to win the game, all we need to do is run 22 dive for every offensive play for the remainder of the game.”
It is a silly, silly attempt to try and prove something works. In the macro, no reasonable person could conclude that the system could work spread out to larger, diversified populations, based solely on the example itself. Too many variables to take it serious. [/quote]
Exactly and trying to produce a “study” with a large enough sample size to extrapolate anything that could apply to an America, China, India, etc… would be almost impossible due to the millions of variables. Further, it wouldn’t work unless America, China, India, etc… didn’t exist in favor of a single global economy/government. Neither of which is going to happen. Unless we think a worker controlled America is going to reverse globalization trends and become 100% isolated, which I doubt.
The only real way to find out if this type of “government” would work would be to just try it, which is unlikely to happen.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The only real way to find out if this type of “government” would work would be to just try it, which is unlikely to happen. [/quote]
Variations of the idea have been tried.
Didn’t really work out all that well… Man’s will to power and all that.
He who controls the food, controls the weapons. He who controls the weapons, controls the other resources. He who controls the resources, controls the population.
The major flaw with central planning, which is the framework of Marxist ideals, is arrogance. People are arrogant enough to think we are smart enough to plan out life, society, etc… We aren’t, lol, and never will be.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The only real way to find out if this type of “government” would work would be to just try it, which is unlikely to happen. [/quote]
Variations of the idea have been tried.
Didn’t really work out all that well… Man’s will to power and all that.
He who controls the food, controls the weapons. He who controls the weapons, controls the other resources. He who controls the resources, controls the population.
The major flaw with central planning, which is the framework of Marxist ideals, is arrogance. People are arrogant enough to think we are smart enough to plan out life, society, etc… We aren’t, lol, and never will be. [/quote]
And arrogant enough to think people will just accept their place in society.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Do you see social and economic mobility as something even on your radar as far as health of our democracy and our freedom? Or is it purely tied to market and money?
[/quote]
I think these questions somewhat summarize the rest of your post, so I’ll just respond to them…Plus: the wall of text had gotten huge.
Social and economic mobility is hugely important. That’s one of the main reasons I want a free economy.
I don’t want a healthy democracy.
I want freedom.
I think mobility is a great thing, but if a rich quadriplegic hires an army of men to cature another man and force him to carry the quadriplegic around on his back everyday…well, the quadriplegic’s no more mobile and another man has lost his freedom…plus: the sum of the two mens’ mobility is now less than it was to start.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Variations of the idea have been tried.
Didn’t really work out all that well… Man’s will to power and all that.
He who controls the food, controls the weapons. He who controls the weapons, controls the other resources. He who controls the resources, controls the population.
The major flaw with central planning, which is the framework of Marxist ideals, is arrogance. People are arrogant enough to think we are smart enough to plan out life, society, etc… We aren’t, lol, and never will be. [/quote]
*The major flaw with central planning is stupidity. People are stupid enough to think that another man is smart enough to make better decisions on their behalf than they woud be able to on their own.
[quote]Severiano wrote:
as social and economic mobility are some of the more important facets to consider under a democracy.
[/quote]
I would say, not living under democracy would be more important.
Republics can actually protect their rights.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Variations of the idea have been tried.
Didn’t really work out all that well… Man’s will to power and all that.
He who controls the food, controls the weapons. He who controls the weapons, controls the other resources. He who controls the resources, controls the population.
The major flaw with central planning, which is the framework of Marxist ideals, is arrogance. People are arrogant enough to think we are smart enough to plan out life, society, etc… We aren’t, lol, and never will be. [/quote]
*The major flaw with central planning is stupidity. People are stupid enough to think that another man is smart enough to make better decisions on their behalf than they woud be able to on their own.[/quote]
Fine, fine. Let’s meet in the middle: arrogant stupidity?
If you have the time, can you go back and address why you said you were “anti LLC”?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Fine, fine. Let’s meet in the middle: arrogant stupidity?
If you have the time, can you go back and address why you said you were “anti LLC”?[/quote]
To be fair, I guess arrogance could be seen as just a form of stupidity. I’m against government recognition of LLCs. I may have misworded my statement(can’t remember exactly what I said), but I just meant that I’m against any government involvement in the economy.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
I’m against government recognition of LLCs. I may have misworded my statement(can’t remember exactly what I said), but I just meant that I’m against any government involvement in the economy. [/quote]
Ideals aside, how would the courts handle liability and torts without recognition of such contracts?
[quote]Severiano wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Kareem Said wrote:
What incentive was there to work in catalonia during the anarchist phase? there is incentive to work so you can eat, get new clothes, have nice dinners at the communal restaurants, so they could have education and go to the pub and have sports events etc etc.
[/quote]
I don’t know anything about Catalonia. Do they produce anything other than essentials to survive? What sporting events? I hope it wasn’t European football run by capitalist states.
I disagree. If I can not improve my station there is no point in working hard, furthering my education, getting an education to begin with, taking a chance on innovation, etc…
Someone has to come up with “what get’s produced.” If that party doesn’t have incentive to innovate there will be nothing for the wokring class to produce in short order.
Hell, people today already accept “free” food and money to do nothing when McDonalds is hiring. You think all of a sudden people will have drive because they get a piece of what they produce. That already happens, it’s called a salary.
He’s 21. What is there you don’t know when you’re 21? It’s the smartest you’ll ever be in your lifetime; you’re practically a fucking guru.
Humble yourself and learn from him.[/quote]
Well look at all the classy responses to his historic example. He cites a legitimate example from the past and all of you turn into a bunch of old bitties. You too Fooshin. [/quote]
Go fly a skyscraper Buckminster.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
He’s 21. What is there you don’t know when you’re 21? It’s the smartest you’ll ever be in your lifetime; you’re practically a fucking guru.
Humble yourself and learn from him.[/quote]
Suddenly, things are so much more clear. Add in the likely hood of being a Junior in college, and it is like the sun burst through the shades.
Funny side note, I was much smarter at 16, I’m talking the most brilliant human on earth type smart, than I was at 21. I didn’t realize just how stupid I was until around 28… Seem to get dumber every year too.