Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you saying its a bad thing ? unproductive thing ? what ?
I worked for a corporate for a while. They were willing to spend double the amount on something just to get it moved from the Operations budget to the Capital expenditure budget because it looked better on the books that way. Also one third of the people working there were contractors because they needed the number of staff on the books to be below a cert ...[text shortened]... an staff. It was also a corporate that is in a monopoly situation so they are rolling in money.
Originally posted by PalynkaIn my previous post I have explicitly advocated a mixed economy. Now you have done the same. Unless your idea of a mixed economy is significantly different from mine, I fail to see what this entire debate is about. We shall see if that is actually the case or not.
Yes.
Your opinion is that people would simply accept the vote without any need for enforcement (or else it wouldn't be anarchism). This is a blatantly false claim for any sufficiently large number of individuals, particularly because any voting process is justified by the absence of consensus.
The logical conclusion is that for any meaningful voting pr ...[text shortened]... gnize many of the shortcomings of the market (some of which you've presented already).
My idea is that society is organized along parallel lines, one capitalist, the other anarchist. In between would be various degrees of blending between the two. People would be guaranteed free movement to any point between the two poles and could make their own choices about in which of the two they wanted to live and to work. Not only would this allow people to make free, unconstrained choices about the conditions directly impacting their lives, it would act as a self-correcting mechanism for each pole. If the anarchist zone began to veer toward authoritarianism, people could simply move out and go work and live in the capitalist zone. If the capitalist zone exploited people too horrifically, people could move into the anarchist zone. Instead of having a monopoly, all capitalist, or all socialist, each zone would have to be perpetually on its best behavior or people would simply leave it.
As it is now, nation states have only one overriding economic mode. They are either all capitalist, or all socialist. Socialists in a capitalist country do not have the ability to live as socialists, and vice versa. As it is impossible to get everyone to agree on anything, this leaves half the people (or so) dissatisfied at any given time. If you didn't subscribe entirely to one side, you could take some half measures, such as working in a collectivized, worker owned industry, but owning your own house and personal property, or living communally, but having employment in a capitalist job. Each zone would be locally autonomous and would decide all their own internal policies, but they would have to have some arrangement between them for deciding a common foreign policy.
So, anyway, that, presented in the broadest of brushstrokes, is my idea of a mixed economy. Of course it is the best of all possible worlds, as I'm sure you will agree.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou mistakenly assert that an anarchist society would have no means of enforcement. This is simply false. Such a society could have as many laws and rules, and punishments for breaking them, as they wish to democratically enact. What makes a society an anarchist one is not the absence of law and punishment, but the manner in which those laws and punishments are enacted and enforced.
Yes.
Your opinion is that people would simply accept the vote without any need for enforcement (or else it wouldn't be anarchism). This is a blatantly false claim for any sufficiently large number of individuals, particularly because any voting process is justified by the absence of consensus.
The logical conclusion is that for any meaningful voting pr gnize many of the shortcomings of the market (some of which you've presented already).
What anarchists are against are hierarchies and exploitation. Laws and punishments cannot be enacted upon society by a ruling class in a hierarchical manner. Anarchists are not against the rule of law, but are against the rule of one man over another. As long as those laws are democratically voted upon, and each man has an equal vote in the matter, then there is no hierarchical imposition from above. Anarchism, simply put, is direct democracy spread to every aspect of society.
Now, It is true that individuals retain the freedom to not consider themselves bound by this collective decision making process. They are free to remove themselves from the jurisdiction of the community. But doing so would remove them from that community altogether, and from any benefits that a collective arrangement would normally convey. Such individuals would have to be entirely self-sufficient. So yes, any anarchist system has to address the right of people to not participate in that system. Of course, if my mixed economy idea were to be adopted, they could simply move to the capitalist zone.
Originally posted by Rajk999If Bill Gates has $56 billion and 55,999 other people have nothing, then a decision to split his wealth equally among them all leaves them with $1 million apiece. 99.99% of the people are substantially wealthier than before, and guess what? Bill Gates is still a millionaire. I fail to see how this scenario results in everyone (or anyone) living in poverty.
I think this is the crux of the problem with communist/socialists. They cant bear to see another system doing well and the people prospering. They want everyone in the world to live in poverty.
Originally posted by Rajk999Capitalism may have once done a fine job of producing, but no longer. Now capitalism is about enforced underproduction due to the constraints of the profit motive. We have the productive capacity to adequately feed, clothe and house every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. The problem is not in being able to produce an adequate number of goods, the problem is in being able to sell them at a profit. So billions of people are allowed to wallow in hunger and poverty because there is no profit to be made in feeding or sheltering them.
Doing a fine job of producing. Can to think of another system that generates such a high standard of living ? Please spare me list of the few undesirable side effects like , excessive advertising, prod for the rich only etc etc. No system is perfect and capitalism has succceeded beyond wildest expectations of the early proponents.
And actually perpuating ...[text shortened]... nt of success, and it can do that becaue the other systems are small and weak .. thankfully so !
But I will pay capitalism its dues. It was a necessary development in the economic history of mankind. It did fulfill its historic role of building up the means of production. But capitalism has passed its prime. Far from moving us forward, capitalism now holds us back. And the profit motive keeps us in a chronic state of underproduction and enforced scarcity.
Originally posted by Rajk999Of course you are correct that merely redistributing dollars will not solve anything as long as the system is left intact. What needs to be redistributed is the productive means of society. The apparatus that generates that wealth must be socially controlled.
And what those people will do after they have eaten the $28 ... EH ?
Or as you put it in another post, the "golden goose" must be socially owned instead of being privately owned.
Originally posted by rwingettI'd be interested in hearing more about your views on this, or even just some handy links. Then, how to move beyond capitalism, or, what is the system going to come up with next?
But capitalism has passed its prime. Far from moving us forward, capitalism now holds us back. And the profit motive keeps us in a chronic state of underproduction and enforced scarcity.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettAll you have done here is change the $28 to $1,000,000. The underlying principle remains the same. It seems that you cant appreicate the importance of having most of the working population in gainful employment rather than receiving handouts from the wealthy.
If Bill Gates has $56 billion and 55,999 other people have nothing, then a decision to split his wealth equally among them all leaves them with $1 million apiece. 99.99% of the people are substantially wealthier than before, and guess what? Bill Gates is still a millionaire. I fail to see how this scenario results in everyone (or anyone) living in poverty.
Actually BG does not have $56B in cash. That amount represents the value of his shares in Microsoft etc. .... etc . Are you proposing that Microsoft be broken up ?
This sentence is particularly interesting :
"I fail to see how this scenario results in everyone (or anyone) living in poverty"
Are you able to predict what will happen if 60,000 people got about $1,000,000 ? Do you really think anyone will be better off ? You might as well just print $56B in money and distribute it !
Originally posted by rwingettYou are proposing old, soon to be extinct, proven worthless, ideologies. Do you have anything new to suggest ?
Of course you are correct that merely redistributing dollars will not solve anything as long as the system is left intact. What needs to be redistributed is the productive means of society. The apparatus that generates that wealth must be socially controlled.
Or as you put it in another post, the "golden goose" must be socially owned instead of being privately owned.
Originally posted by rwingettI will certainly agree that there is likely to come a time when capitalism (or mixed systems) will be replaced by a system that can redistribute wealth more appropriately, but that time is not now. I would personally welcome such a system in which hunger and poverty can be eliminated and I accept that the world has the resources to do it. Unfortunately the profit motive is the driving force of capitalism and cannot be removed without disastrous results. Your idea of getting people to produce without profit is likely to fail.
Capitalism may have once done a fine job of producing, but no longer. Now capitalism is about enforced underproduction due to the constraints of the profit motive. We have the productive capacity to adequately feed, clothe and house every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. The problem is not in being able to produce an adequate number of goods, ...[text shortened]... ack. And the profit motive keeps us in a chronic state of underproduction and enforced scarcity.
How do you propose to make your ideas work ? Im curious.
Originally posted by rwingettAbout those billions wallowing in hunger and poverty...
Capitalism may have once done a fine job of producing, but no longer. Now capitalism is about enforced underproduction due to the constraints of the profit motive. We have the productive capacity to adequately feed, clothe and house every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth. The problem is not in being able to produce an adequate number of goods, ...[text shortened]... ack. And the profit motive keeps us in a chronic state of underproduction and enforced scarcity.
The only reason they continue to wallow is they can't participate in a free market. Most of them live in countries that are lead by self-serving, suspicious, ignorant, ideologically intolerant, hardly-better-than-feudal "kings". These rulers abhor the idea of people having the freedom to start their own businesses or sell their labor to the highest bidder. Instead, they like people to be following THEIR orders. So dictators sell their countries natural resources to foreign governments so that they can fund a strong army that keeps the people following dictates.
People do not need goods handed to them to succeed. People will succeed if you create the right conditions -- mostly peace and a free market. Better conditions then happen naturally and automatically. Grant those two things, and the people themselves will do the rest.
Originally posted by spruce112358Well said.
About those billions wallowing in hunger and poverty...
The only reason they continue to wallow is they can't participate in a free market. Most of them live in countries that are lead by self-serving, suspicious, ignorant, ideologically intolerant, hardly-better-than-feudal "kings". These rulers abhor the idea of people having the freedom to start t ...[text shortened]... urally and automatically. Grant those two things, and the people themselves will do the rest.
However, I think Mr Rwingett knows why the billions are in poverty.
His grouse is that the rich western capitalists do not share ALL their wealth with the poor, that the means of production (mostly in the west) are not owned by ALL in the world. The reason why they are poor does not concern him. The important thing is that Gates, Dell, Trump must be strpped of their wealth and it must be distributed to the poor.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageInstead of production being for social use, it is instead geared for private profit (which has a distinctly anti-social character to it). Instead of producing enough goods to satisfy everyone's needs, production will be limited to only what can be sold at a profit. Production will scaled back to keep prices high, so the owners can reap more profits. So the productive resources in a capitalist society stand partially idle while hundreds of millions of people live in poverty or starve. Thousands of people will remain unemployed, not because there is no need for the goods they could produce, but because those goods cannot be sold at a profit. Farmers are paid to not grow food, in a world where people routinely starve, so we won't have "overproduction" driving prices down. Huge stores of food are allowed to go to waste because it can't be sold. What madness is all this? What sociopath designed such a system? We could eradicate hunger and poverty overnight, but the reason we don't is because there's no profit to be made at it.
I'd be interested in hearing more about your views on this, or even just some handy links. Then, how to move beyond capitalism, or, what is the system going to come up with next?
I've looked for some good links on 'artificial scarcity', but haven't really come up with anything yet.
******************
The disaster of socialism after Marx is that all efforts at societal transformation have been 'top-down' attempts. Communist parties worked to foment revolution to seize the reins of power. Or they sought to radicalize the labor movement and build broad support, which would be used to seize the reins of power. They're all going straight for the top, trying to change everything in one fell swoop. And it has always failed. Change, in my opinion, must come from the bottom-up, one community at a time.
In the 19th century, there were many experiments in "Utopian" socialism, which sought to build ideal, local communities along socialist principles. Like the Owenites, at New Harmony, Indiana, or the Ruskin colonies, in Tennessee and Georgia, or Fourier's Icarian movement. They all went about the practical business of building local, alternative communities, instead of trying to impose a systemwide change from the very top. If these communities had thrived and expanded, it would have given people the practical experience of managing their own affairs. Small at first, but gradually expanding to encompass more and more people. The transition from capitalism to socialism would be a gradual and non-violent one, spread over many years. It would give people time to adjust to the idea and see its benefits in practice.
So I think socialists need to start small and work their way up. They need to give people practical, working results and not just fiery manifestos. The difficulty with this approach is that the first communities would have to abide by the rules of the capitalist marketplace in relation to the external world. They would have to remain economically viable and would only be able to practice their socialism internally. If they were able to develop an interlocking network of communities they could decrease their dependency on the capitalist marketplace. If they became wholly self-sufficient they could effectively secede from that marketplace altogether.
The orthodox Marxists, with their visions of revolution dancing before their eyes, sneered at the communal movement of the 19th century as being a diversionary sideshow. And it is true that all those early communities eventually failed, for a variety of reasons. But much was learned. If all the vast amounts of money, time, and manpower that went into the failed revolutions of the 20th century had instead been invested in building socialist communities, who knows how far along the transformation of society would now be? We'd certainly have more to show for our money than we've got now.
Originally posted by Rajk999Why is the time for a new system not now? You agree that we have the material capacity. If you really desire to see a more equitable distribution of wealth and the elimination of poverty and hunger, you must be willing to expand beyond your comfortable range of experience.
I will certainly agree that there is likely to come a time when capitalism (or mixed systems) will be replaced by a system that can redistribute wealth more appropriately, but that time is not now. I would personally welcome such a system in which hunger and poverty can be eliminated and I accept that the world has the resources to do it. Unfortunately the p ...[text shortened]... ce without profit is likely to fail.
How do you propose to make your ideas work ? Im curious.
Why do you foresee the replacement of the profit motive as being disastrous? It could be. But not necessarily so. We must take the hard lessons learned from the Soviet debacle and make sure similar mistakes are not repeated. We know what not to do now.
Why do you think getting people to produce without profit is likely to fail? Does the prospect that something might fail act as a reason to never try it? There was a chance the Wright Brothers' plane might fail, but that didn't deter them. There is a chance that every human endeavor might fail. But oftentimes the potential benefit is worth the risk.
As for how to make my ideas work, read my latest post to Bosse de Nage and see if that answers your questions. If not, I could expand on things further.