When they continue to use the code word diversity, I see doom on the horizon.
People may be created 'equal' however cultures are not, and this mad rush head long into multiculturalism and diversity will effectively destroy the base of society. Also the points he made at 1:20, seem correct with a traditional capitalist society, however he remarks these points are not the current standard; I agree, as welfare seems to be gaining popularity in opposition to the honor of earning your way.
I agree, we need something besides capitalism. Between the extreme right-wing Capitalists and the extremely naive Neo-Communist Venus Project advocates, I believe that parecon, being probably just left of center, is a wonderful proposal. We actually have a parecon business in my city that I frequent called "Mondragon", a vegan cafe/political bookstore. ^_^
@TheWALOS I think Parecon makes a valuable addition to the social anarchist movement. It adds valuable insight into the dangers of a coordinator class, something often ignored by the anarchist movement.
I read it in an anthology of political philosophy by Aeon Skoble who is my teacher and put together the anthology. It is in the Grundrisse, and he basically says that it is the illusion of capitalism and talks about the individual character being dependent on the larger whole, which I believe to be true to a certain extent but there are plenty of variances in the individual in aptitude, character, etc. Why can't the individual retain that individuality and use that to benefit the whole?
why so complicated? sounds like a scam. if the U.S. hadn't been robbed blind for about a hundred years, the average US citizen would be out in the world compeating with the big emotionless empire apparatusses we see today, apparatus from rich blood manipulating the system we already had, ( a system with only two flaws, sexism and racism) simple and conservative.
A scam? Umm, read the facts. We know that direct democracy works, we know that capitalism creates a division in class and labour, and we need an alternative. This man posits an alternative, and parecon communities today are proof of concept as far as how practical and doable it is. So, where does the scam part come in?
@TheWALOS have your yacht's but not at the expense of my canoe... a few jerks make the rich look bad by working over the poor until they are basically slaves. then the classes are not at fault, the few jerks who bend and manipulate our laws are at fault., soooooo jail them and move on.... the masses don't jail their secular "masters." and the rich are not these "masters" the rich are just more usable tools to help guide a few jerks into ego maniacle nirvana. Class hass nothing to do with it.
For a society to be just and respectful of human rights that should not necessarily have to lead to a classless society. Marx thinks our natural progression through economic systems starts with feudalism and ends with communism, it is evident that is not the case. There is a certain need for a reevaluation of our system with the allowance of countless human rights abuses. But why do we need a classless society in order to respect what should be inalienable human rights?
Every person can be seen as an equal but they are not equal. Genetics breed inquality as Albert points out. Geography however should not be a determinant of whether or not human rights are respected. Individualism does not need to equate to the injustice that exists in our society. Marx's theory of denying individualism and that it is an illusion of capitalism is flawed in his very existence. How does he account for thinkers like himself?
as people who eloquently consolidate the crux of thousands of conversations had with other members of society into digestable formats, i.e. books, treatises, manifestos...
I am not exactly sure if you are implying that Marx was just regurgitating conversations in a consolidated way. My point is that he himself is an independent thinker and in his writings displayed individualism. Fact is we are all still talking about ideas he introduced proves him to be unique. There is something about him that sets him apart from others.Otherwise, why his writings? Why publish his ideas as opposed to the countless other conversations having been had whether written or spoken?
no man is an island. any of the great thinkers we now worship, modern or ancient, could not have come about simply because they alone as solitary individuals possessed all the ideas they ever put to paper. for proof, tell me one single idea you have that isn't linked to some sort of influence from someone else you've known or read.
sometimes authors do publish texts consisting of interviews with other thinkers.
and I'll bet even Marx had someone to help him edit his stuff right?
Yeah, I never said that people who are individuals have no outside influence. There are obviously individuals who are more extraordinary than others. With ideas compiled and carried on as long as Karl Marx he was absolutely out there for his time. My point in saying that is philosophically he did not recognize individualism. Just because we are influenced by others doesn't mean that we are not individuals, that is all I am saying.
but help me out here, what Marx writings are you pulling from regarding the denial of individuality thing? I haven't gotten into the word of Marx himself very much, so a suggestion of what to look for where would be appreciated. thanks
Example: I used to work in a dental lab. We would take $10 worth of material and make a crown that was $1000+ by the time it hit your mouth. The lab's and the dentiist's need for profit mark everything up, forcing the consumer to generate more money. Profit is the answer to a problem that profit creates itself.
The basic problem of capitalism is profit, not the people running things. We need to go back to the original slogan "from each according to ability, to each according to need".
We have to specific; "Each according to ability, to each according to need" was discussed by Karl Marx, and before him Louis Blanc. It is not an "original slogan" of capitalism, it's the opposite of capitalism.
Parecon requires that we radically change all of our fundamental social relations and institutions, at the same time... Including
- individual ownership
- paying people for their knowledge/skills vs. their physical labor
- making choices without some group a) determining who will be affected (how?), and b) have the "affected" vote.
What means will we use to accomplish this? Will people volunteer? Or will it require laws, hence force? Utopia through guns, one more time...bad Fido, bad.
There is no force advocated in any ParEcon theory. In fact one of the driving forces behind the idea is a clear rejection of central planning and state power. You also forgot another big step which is the abolition of the market.
What is the strategy? Education? Or something else. People have been trying to educate people to be kind/fair/considerate to one another for millenia - and we have the reality of today. People act in their self-interest, and there understanding of self-interest is limited to their scope of knowledge - which means - they take care of their own. NOT committees that determine who is affected by what choices and having those "affected" vote!!!
What you are saying is that human behaviour exists in a social and economic vacuum. You can't look at the greedy actions of people and say "hey, this is just how humans are", without analysing why they are compelled to act in those ways by structures which are outside of their control: the market, corporate division of labour, etc.
2 Things. 1) It is possible we have a misunderstanding, and are talking apples and oranges, but I do not thinks so. 2) You state that I must "analyze" "why". No, I do not. We are not talking about why people are they way they are, we are talking about how they are supposed to move from today into the Parecon future.
cannot "not" analyze I am not saying that. I am not discussing the
This is another problem with anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-socialism. Any sort of drive for profit is considered "greed".
Put it this way: according to this extremely black-and-white viewpoint, a lower-middle class family, who decides to open a business downtown in order to help their kids go to college later on, is exercising "greed". If a lower-class individual tried to open a tiny business in an attempt to gain profit and move into the middle-class, that would ALSO be considered greed.
I believe that greed is a natural human emotion, same with empathy, same with hate, same with love. These characteristics exist on a base level in different proportions from person to person, and are accelerated and reduced by the environment in differing proportions from person to person. There are some people who are just greedy, and there are some people who are just selfless. But, the least we could do is create an environment that aims to encourage these positive emotions.
Hmmm. First you say "no state power". In the next sentence you say "the abolition of the market." How are you going to "abolish" the market? If you are not going to use "central planning" or "state power" or "force" to abolish it, then I like your system, and am curious how you expect to abolish the market otherwise.
How would you abolish the market in a anarcho-syndicalist society based on parecon? Even if just 5 people decided not to follow parecon and market their own goods instead, a market would RISE UP. People would follow in suit (since they would see that they could earn more profits that way).
The only way you could truly abolish the market is through force/state socialism, which is anathema to anarcho-syndicalism. This is why anarcho-syndicalism/parecon would collapse like a house of cards.
So the idea is that folks will start doing it voluntarily, if it works and is indeed better, it will spread virally, each of the new institutions corporate with each other inside of the current market system becoming stronger etc. Eventually gaining power to make lager changes in society by making old institutions irrelevant. All this obviously happened as change is being made in all spheres of social and political live as well.
OK - give me a sense for the path from here to there? People giving up property and responsibility voluntarily? What if people refuse? LAW = FORCE. Parecon is EXACTLY like communism/socialism in the utopian NEED at its base, for human beings to start acting against their nature, which is pecking order, non-equal, with extremely localized knowledge and values. It is simply not going to happen "on its own."
Seriously - could you accomplish this with 10 of your friends? NO. You can't. How about a home owners assoication where people have real, shared interests? NO. You can't. How can we accomplish this with whole societies where people don't understand the interdependencies? Get real about this! IF it happens on its own, that is called free-market capitalism.
@RationalHumanBeing You think capitalism isn't based on having some other group make choices for us? Capitalism is totally collectivist! In capitalism, people have to listen to their bosses and/or to stockholders.
Individualism does not exist within economics; all economies are collectivist. The relevant question is not individualism vs collectivism, but whether the collectives should be oligarchal (government bureaucracies and corporations) or democratic (trade unions and cooperatives).
Your argument is purely semantic. Every social structure involves a community, what you're doing here is twisting words to suit your point. Capitalism is as collectivist as the southern United States in the 1800s, which is to say not at all. However, capitalism is equally as communal as socialism, because it requires community participation, but capitalism is not collectivist. Stop taking the piss.
@TheWALOS Capitalism is totally collectivist. Any business that employs more than one person is a collective (meaning a group of people who work together towards some common purpose). That is the very definition of collectivism.
Now, it is true that there are some people in capitalism who are self-employed. But that isn't specific to capitalism (it can exist in many forms of socialism as well). And the reality is that the bulk of any economy will be made up of collectivist enterprises.
@TheWALOS It is not just semantic. The point is that capitalism falls victim to the same criticisms that it lobbies at "collectivist" ideologies like socialism: it is not focused on individual freedom.
Like I said, just because a criticism can be applied to both concepts doesn't mean that both concepts are the same. Socialism is vastly more collectivist (by definition) than Capitalism is (by definition). You can't just say "both systems require a collective, so their both collectivist", because every system requires a collective, and the term collectivism refers to a very specific philosophical perspective. So, I'm not sure what you're actually trying to argue.
@TheWALOS See, but socialism ISN'T more collectivist than capitalism. That's the point. Socialism as an ideology focuses more on the collective, but the reality is that both systems utilize the collective equally. In capitalism, the collective is the corporation. In socialism, the collective is the worker-run enterprise. But in both cases, collectives exist. It's just that in capitalism, collectives are oligarchal, while in socialism, collectives are democratic.
But, we can actually only really find near-ubiquitous collectivism in one. No matter how many straws we grasp at, Capitalism is not a collectivist framework. It's a framework that involves a collective, but that's as far as it generally goes.
@TheWALOS The collective is no more present in socialism than in capitalism. Socialism (or, at the very least, many forms of socialism) is not opposed to self-employment or any other form of individualist economic activity. It's just that WHEN collective activity is undertaken, it has to be done democratically.
Again, collectivism has nothing to do with the utility of the collective, and everything to do with collective welfare. So again, socialism is vastly more collectivist than capitalism.
@TheWALOS Where do you get the idea that it's about collective welfare? That wasn't even in the definition that you gave.
Get this straight: collectivism is not an ideology. There is no group of people who say "we're collectivists." It's a general term to describe a general arrangement based on collective operation.
Also, collectivism has nothing to do with the collective's utility, and has everything to do with the collective's well-being being a priority over the individual's wellbeing. Socialism focuses more on the collective as a whole, like you said. So, I'm willing to say that Socialism is more collectivist. Still not sure what you're making this argument for, though.
@TheWALOS The point of this argument is as follows: fear of socialism often focuses around a fear of collectivism, and I understand that. In many ways, I consider myself an individualist. But the reality is that within any functioning economy, much activity is done in collectives. This fear is misplaced; it applies no more to socialism than to capitalism. I mean to alleviate individualist fears of socialism.
There's a difference, though. The collective's potential is focused differently in both systems. Capitalism uses coercion and darwinism, and Socialism uses democracy and volition. So, again, and again, and again, Socialism is more collectivist.
@TheWALOS How does that make it more collectivist? You've stated that the collective is free and voluntary in socialism, but coerced in capitalism (something I totally agree with). But that doesn't make the collective any less real in either case.
@TheWALOS No it doesn't. All it proves is that the collectives were not established voluntarily. It doesn't say how many there are relative to society.
Again, for collectivism to be prevalent, society has to be made up of collectives. Whether those collectives are democratic or oligarchical makes not difference.
By this definition, every collective is collectivist, no matter the size, nor the intention behind their culmination. If you put fifty bitter enemies in a room together, their engaging in collectivism. At this point, I fail to see the usefulness of the word collectivist. Which is probably why it doesn't actually mean what you think it means.
So, now your argument means that collectivism only exists when a collective all works towards a common goal, so how is Capitalism collectivist if it's coercive and socially darwinian?
@TheWALOS Not "now." That's been my argument all along.
They do work toward a common goal. Workers in capitalism all share the goal of enriching the owner. It's not a goal they've voluntarily chosen to take upon themselves, but it is still a goal that they are all working towards.
Are you sure about that? I'm sure the 80% that makes up the working class does NOT aspire to enrich the owning class, mate. That's not a capitalist economy's ubiquitously common interest and common goal. No, capitalism is taking what you can get in a rat-race for first place, meaning that the collective has no goal in common (collectively), meaning that by YOUR definition, capitalism is not collectivist.
@TheWALOS Again, they aren't choosing to enrich the boss. Perhaps they aren't even aware that they are enriching the boss. But their work is producing riches for the boss. That's what they are all working towards, whether they know it or not.
So, collectivism is when you work towards a common goal regardless of whether or not you know you're doing it? So, if you lock fifty enemies in a room together to save the planet, that's collectivism?
What if they spend their entire time fighting? What if they start killing each other, but they're (unbeknownst to them) saving the world simply by being locked up and kept from the rest of the population. By this definition, a psych-ward filled with dangerous people incapable of understanding why they're locked up is a manifestation of collectivism. This is a definition of the word that I've never personally seen or heard about ever, and I'd love to see where you got it.
@TheWALOS In that case, their being locked up together would not, in and of itself, have anything to do with saving the world. If the goal is only to keep them from the rest of the population, one could simply lock them up separately. Or deport them. Or kill them. Their being in the same room is irrelevant.
So, if there's a group of people who share a common goal, whether they know it or not (also, I have no idea how someone could have a goal without being a aware of it, but whatever)), it's collectivism, unless they're geographically isolated from one another?
I'm getting to the point where I'm pretty convinced that you haven't any idea what you're talking about. That's OK, just stop talking about it until you know more :P.
So, you twist a word's connotation in order to communicate with a specific demographic of people? This is a completely different position than the one you took when this discussion began. Again, I say you're just taking the piss.
@TheWALOS You asked me where I got the definition; I'm simply telling you. And I don't twist it myself; I accept whatever twisting they have given it.
What argument, exactly, did I state at the beginning that is "completely different" from what I'm saying now? I believe at the beginning I explained to you how I define "collectivism," not where I got that definition.
Your contention at the beginning of this argument was that the meaning of the word collectivism is in fact the meaning you assigned to it. Now you say that someone else assigned it wrongly and you had simply adopted it in order to communicate with them. Sounds like BS.
@TheWALOS I said nothing of the sort. I made no contention at the beginning of where I got the word; all I did was explain to you what I meant by "collectivism."
Well, as long as we're making up definitions, capitalism is the ideology wherein people roll in lollipops and pick beautiful flowers known as capitals. That's the definition, prove me wrong.
@TheWALOS See, as I don't worship the English language, I don't actually care how you use the word capitalism. I'm going to criticize a system based on private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery. Whether that system is called "capitalism" is irrelevant; the point is that it must end.
Oh, stop the rhetorical nonsense, you sound like a member of TZM for fuck's sake. If there's no agreed upon meaning or generally accepted connotation to any word, every word is meaningless and communication is impossible. Using that definition of collectivism, an ACTUAL conversation about collectivism would go fucking nowhere.
@TheWALOS So who has to agree to this "agreed-upon" meaning? My capitalist opponents and I agree when we use the term "collectivist." You act as if there's some magisterial body with divinely-sanctioned powers to decide upon the meanings of words, and anyone who disagrees is some sort of heretic.
Of course not, but words have meanings that are generally agreed upon, if they didn't, they wouldn't generally mean the same thing from person to person. We all agree, through our use, that the word 'is' is a third person singular present tense verb. Nobody decided this fact, but the word means what the word means, and the connotation is what the connotation is.
@TheWALOS True. But if the people I'm talking to don't understand my use of a certain word, we don't debate the etymology of that word. We just stop, discuss our respective definitions of that word, and than continue our original conversation.
Well fine, but that also means that such a discussion would only mean something to it's participants. It's like people who get into groups and discuss intelligent design, it only means something to them, because everyone else has a differing notion as to the nature of reality.
@TheWALOS Well, typically discussions do focus on the people present. If someone else wanted to know what we were talking about, we could always explain to that person what we meant specifically.
The difference is that the CONCEPTS that we are discussing are perfectly real, it's only the word choice that is questionable. As far as intelligent design is concerned, the concepts are bullshit.
Try and see this from my perspective. Say Noam Chomsky walks in the room and joins the conversation, and you're discussing how capitalism and socialism are both collectivist. He'd probably tell you that that's not what the word means, and would have to cater to your notions of the word in order to participate. And he wouldn't even be able to transfer the content of the discussion anywhere else or cite it, because nobody else uses that word in that way.
@TheWALOS Other people do use that word in that way, actually. I can say from personal experience that a LOT of people use that word in that way.
If I had such a conversation with Noam Chomsky, perhaps he'd correct my word choice. In which case I'd explain to him what I meant by that word, and we could then civilly continue our discussion. Unlike some zealots, Chomsky isn't going to go ape shit over a single word.
I'm not going apeshit, but if we just invent new meanings for different words on the fly, you could rationalize yourself out of any situation. "Oh no, I said this, but I actually meant this, so yeah, you just didn't understand". How about taking some personal responsibility for knowing the content of the discussions you wish to have, and using language that isn't totally fucking ambiguous. Because if you did that, we'd agree.
Do me a favour, and I'm being sincere. Cite me one published instance of someone defining "collectivism" as "the presence of a collective with a common goal". Which is essentially the definition you gave me. If you can prove to me that this definition is common place, I'll say I was wrong.
@TheWALOS If you really think that I'm just "taking the piss," why are you bothering debating me? If you really don't see any value to my arguments, why are you so intent on refuting them? It's clear that, correctly or incorrectly, you see no value in my arguments. Why waste your time? Don't you have something better to do?
@TheWALOS Yeah, because socialism is all about proper syntax. Forget worker control over the means of production. The real key to an ideal society is having everyone use words in exactly the manner that the encyclopedia intends.
@TheWALOS What a wonderful expression of your vocabulary. "Piss" and "fuck" are such complex, descriptive words, aren't they. You sure are proving to me the value of your extensive linguistic knowledge.
Are you suggesting that my use of slang vernacular reflects on my linguistic competence, or my linguistic performance? If so, you're fucked. I'm sorry, but I really cannot help someone who thinks in such black-and-white terms.
@TheWALOS I'm simply marveling at the fact that someone so zealous about proper use of syntax would choose words like "fuck" or "piss." I question your competence not so much as your sincerity.
Well, since those words really have nothing to do with syntax, and since vulgarity has nothing to do with linguistic knowledge, I'm going to go ahead and say you have no idea what you're talking about.
@TheWALOS I just wonder why someone who cherishes the English language as much as you do wouldn't want to find a better word than "fuck" to use against me. Certainly you could find a much more precise term than that, something that would increase my vocabulary and further my understanding of the language (which you seem to think should be an important goal in any conversation).
Criticizing my use of vulgarities does nothing to serve your argument, mind you. I'm not here as your personal dictionary, I just saw that you used a word in a way that was just silly. I pointed out why it was silly, and you've made about thirty posts worth of rationalizations for your poor and inaccurate choice of words.
@TheWALOS I'm rationalizing nothing; I really don't care if you think my word choice is silly. I'm interested in figuring out why this is of such significance to you. I have never met anyone who puts this much effort into correcting what she views as poor word usage.
And I'm sure I took you to mean that my word choice was "silly" when you immediately described me as "taking the piss" and implied that I was deliberately deceiving people with my word choice.
If language is the medium we use to relay information, then our information can only be as good as the language used to relay it, if the language is fucked, the information is probably fucked too. That's my problem.
@TheWALOS So I'll figure out how people will best understand the language I'm using based on the way those people use certain words. And in the case of capitalists, that means using the word "collectivist" in a certain manner.
That's all well and good, but this implies that you have a primary use of the word that you use outside of conversations with capitalists. What would that be? Because, I happen to recall you saying that socialism isn't generally more collectivist than capitalism, but by almost every scholarly definition and use of the word, I'm lead to an antithetical understanding of the word. So, if it's not that definition, what is it?
As far as your vulgarities, all sarcasm aside, I really wonder why vulgarity is necessary to use against someone who happens to use a single word in a somewhat different manner.
@TheWALOS I really don't understand you. Even if I were misusing the word "collectivism," why would you care? You agree with the concept, and its not as if there's some group of "collectivists" for me to offend. What difference does my word choice make to you?
I care, because telling people bullshit is, y'know, wrong. Because I'm not purely self-interested, and I don't want people receiving bogus information.
@TheWALOS So a mis-defining of one word makes the entire argument bullshit? No matter that you agree with the concepts I am arguing; because you disagree with my word choice, you must assume that I am totally self-interested and have no desire but to deceive people.
I agree that socialism and capitalism share characteristics, like having a collective of people. But I don't agree with the notion that they are both equally collectivist.
I think they're both based on individual freedom, but in differing capacities. Capitalism values the freedom to pursue one's self-interest without a coercive state. Socialism values having social benefits given by all to benefit all, creating a different kind of social freedom.
@TheWALOS See, that's where I disagree with you on an actually meaningful issue. Capitalism is not about individual freedom; it's about a small, moneyed elite, in league with the government, controlling the masses. Individuals are subordinated to the will of an oligarch.
That's a pretty narrow perspective, regardless of whether or not that happens to be the outcome of a capitalistic society. Under capitalism, everyone has the right to enter the market and compete, nobody is legally restricted from pursuing their own self-intesest. That's the freedom that capitalists value. And that is a legitimate type of freedom for one to value, nothing wrong with it, really. The end result is a different story, though.
@TheWALOS My argument regards the end result, not the ideal. The theories of how laissez-faire capitalism would work sound great, but the reality is that no such society could ever be achieved because it is based on a contradiction. I'm arguing that the reality of capitalism is just as destructive to individual freedom as socialism.
Actually, free market capitalism would work if people had adequate purchasing power and the education to wisely allocate their dollar-votes within the economy. I wouldn't say it's impossible, just really really difficult to do.
@TheWALOS We can argue about the semantics all we want. The fact of the matter is that capitalism succumbs to the same criticisms that are always given to "collectivist" socialism: in capitalism, as in any economic system, people have to work as a group toward common goals. Capitalism is no more individualist than any other economic system. It's just that, in capitalism, groups of people are directed hierarchically. In socialism, groups of people run themselves democratically.
@TheWALOS Capitalism is an economic system. Collectivism is a general characteristic, one which happens to apply to all economic systems (including capitalism).
@TheWALOS That's the definition that the dictionary gives... the dictionary frequently gets these definitions wrong. According to many dictionaries, socialism is defined by government control of the economy, anarchy as chaos, and communism as totalitarianism. None of those definitions describe any of those ideologies; socialism is worker control over production, anarchy is voluntary, democratic order, and communism is communal ownership within a stateless society.
They're citations. Citations are used as references for information. If no citations are credible, you might as well burn all of our medical journals. Chances are if the citations on a particular subject are in consensus, there's probably a good chance what they say is accurate.
I think you just don't like the fact that collectivist philosophy doesn't conform to your argument. Stop taking the piss.
@TheWALOS But the fact that you can find SOME citations that agree with your opinion doesn't make it true. You have to prove that those citations come from credible sources. Thus far, you're only qualification is that they are the wikipedia citations. That isn't exactly a seal of accuracy.
Well, you're making the claim, and haven't offered really much of anything besides an opinion to support your claim. So, as Russell would say, the burden of proof is on you to prove your contention to be true.
Cite your contention, please. I'd like to know where you're getting the notion that Collectivism is just an umbrella term for any system involving a collective.
Now, you're basically arguing for the semantic value of the word, and the connotation you WANT it to have, in the context you WANT it to exist in. And you're flaunting it.
@TheWALOS Actually, I'm arguing about a concept, the concept of a society based on group effort. And I chose to use the word "collectivism" to describe that society. And somehow you have a problem with that.
Yes, because that's not what the word means, that's not the word's intended use, nor does it bare the word's actual connotation. You're basically taking a word and re-coining it as your own. Which leads to confusion, and ultimately leads to an ineffective use of language. As a student of both Linguistics and Economics, I take slight issue with people saying misleading things.
@TheWALOS You still haven't actually demonstrated to me that I'm misusing the word. In this case, the burden of proof falls on you, as YOU are asserting that my use of the word "collectivism" is wrong.
I told you, the encyclopedia citations and dictionary definitions both don't support what you think it is. Since we don't have the luxury of a scholar to refer to, we'll have to refer to the scholar's works (which is what the wikipedia citations are comprised of), and they disagree with you. So, you are really the barer of the burden of proof. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're taking a piss and being overly defensive here. It's OK to be wrong.
@TheWALOS I'm still just really amazed that you would attack me over word choice.
And again, if we go by what the dictionaries and encyclopedias say, socialism is big government, anarchy is chaos, and communism is totalitarianism. You and I both know that those definitions are wrong.
I've actually never read or seen an encyclopedia that actually misrepresented a certain ideology. Usually they're done pretty good justice when things like encyclopedias are concerned, because sources are cited, and rigorously scrutinized.
@TheWALOS And don't quote me the dictionary again. By the dictionary's standards, socialism is the ideology that the government should own everything. You and I both know that that isn't true.
@TheWALOS That doesn't mean that citations of any kind can't be trusted; it means that word use is subjective and we should assume that because a dictionary says something, that is its only meaning.
The word is subjective like every other word, but a word is only as good as it's connotation, and the connotation you posit it having is certainly not the connotation it's come to have.
@TheWALOS It is the connotation that it has when capitalists talk about socialism being "inhumanly collectivist and opposed to individual freedom." Capitalists fear socialism because they fear individual rights and interests being subordinated to the common goals of a group. I have heard them call that "collectivism." And it is in that context in which I use the word "collectivism." They understand my point, and they are the people I am trying to reach.
Well, if a capitalist really understood the meaning of the word collectivism, they probably wouldn't be capitalists. In my opinion, though. But, just because one group of people misuses a word doesn't really give you carte blanche to misuse it in the same way. Why not call their bullshit and say "Hey, you said this one statement, and you got it completely wrong".
@TheWALOS A) I wasn't aware, until just now, that there might be anything wrong with their definition (and I'm still not convinced that there is)
B) When trying to change people's minds, it generally isn't a good tactic to start by criticizing their syntax. That typically makes those people feel like I don't respect them, and thus be unwilling to have a debate with me.
@TheWALOS I never told you to "hold my hand." You asked me why I don't correct capitalists who use a certain definition of the word "collectivism." I explained to you that doing so would do more harm than good; it would make them feel like I didn't respect them.
@TheWALOS Explain to me, if you will, why this matters? Why would you fight with me over a definition? All I'm trying to do is prove that socialism does not destroy individuality. Why would you, someone who, as far as I can tell, is a socialist, try to stop me from doing that?
@TheWALOS I'm doing it "wrong?" Why? Because I chose the term "collectivism" to distinguish something from individualism? Clearly you don't disagree with my point; you just don't like my using the term "collectivism."
Yes, exactly. Because you're misusing the word, collectivism doesn't mean what you think it does. That's my point. We all misuse words to which we only have an inkling of their meaning, it's no big deal, just stop grasping at straws, mate.
@RationalHumanBeing against-me fallacy. say you want to explain that the wellfare state is a drain on the economy and should be done away with. if someone where to ask you "well, how do you propose we should deal with the poor who depend on it?" it would be beside the point. the feact that a hypothetical senario affects certain people does not make it personal and it does not disprove the hypothetical.
Wow, this guy is obviously not an economist but a total boob. What he's described is bascially a cottage industry commune - super, I guess we can kiss industrialization good bye. But then again, he did say Parecon is for anarchists and socialists - not exactly the deepest thinkers of our time.
So you are saying that Noam Chomsky, an anarchist, is not a "deep thinker"? He was only named arguably the most important intellectual alive by the NY times and is the most cited living author. He is also down with parecon by the way.
Chomsky's political work holds NO academic weight. He cites his own research as the authority and even that is poorly done - misciting and misquoting the sources. Don't forget, this is the guy that said survivors of Cambodia's killing fields can't be trusted for the truth of the atrocities.
Chomsky's works are interdisciplinary - very few people (Sens, Gunder Franke) are able to publish cross-disciplinary work that are recognized across the board.
Where and when did Chomsky discount the accounts of the survivors? As far as I can tell, he criticized Western media accounts of Pol Pot's regime as anti-communist propaganda. Where does Chomsky cite himself except to say something like, "In a book of mine, I once argued..."? Check any of his bibliographies and you'll find nothing but people not named Noam Chomsky.
You're citing the New York Times as a legitimate source for truth? LOL! Chomsky's right on U.S. foreign policy, but wrong on literally everything else because his axioms that he deduces his views from are just plain false.
We are a post-industrial society, first of all. Second, how about you read someone's full argument instead of judging him based on a 3-minute interview, which you obviously have not done. Parecon does not do away with industrialization, that's completely senseless...Albert is not a primitivist in any sense.
How is shaping the economy not more power? It's really one of the only powers there is, why do people go to war? to claim resources (shaping the economy) why do we want people to be educated? to get jobs in the economy. why does almost everyone need money to live? because all resources are in the economy. Everything is connected to the economy, having more power in shaping that, is having more power in everything.
Inequality of wealth/capitalism is not the root of war. It's the State combined with its own resource/power interests. It's government-plus-"capitalism" aka mercantilism.
Shaping the economy is not more power because it does not allow individuals to control one another. In actuality, it helps one another. Also, one must remember that resources are scarce and this is an extension of property rights (no one has a claim to undisturbed natural goods in their original state).
resources are the economy, if we have a grain based economy it does not stop being an economy, a state or individuals interest in resources is there interest in the basis of the economy. commodities (resources). If I have more money I can start a buisness, and hire people: directly controling their lives, it does allow people to exploit eachother.
And because resources are scarce control of them (control of the economy) is power. And that power should be in the hands of the people.
""""If I have more money I can start a buisness, and hire people: directly controling their lives, it does allow people to exploit eachother."""""
^This is classic Marxist nonsense. The business is at the MERCY of both potential employees and consumers. I currently work at my school's info desk in the student union. Am I being exploited because I have a boss? No, I'd just quit if I didn't like my situation. My decision to work for my boss is VOLUNTARY.
"""And because resources are scarce control of them (control of the economy) is power. And that power should be in the hands of the people."""""
^^If you assume that "the people" should control the resources, then you think that pieces of unused land not yet claimed by anyone are possessed by "the people" by definition. Who decides this? How does private ownership infringe on right to life if, for instance, the land is in the form of a twig or a blade of grass?
Also, the only way you could argue "exploitation" exists is if you believed in the labor theory of value (as opposed to marginal utility). The labor theory of value is 100% false. That's why a band like Nickelback earns millions when a FAR more hard-working talented band like Dream Theater earns way less.
Under the logic of "exploitation theory", Dream Theater is being exploited by Roadrunner Records for not being paid the full fruit of their labor, and should overthrow them.
So when my boss tells me what to do, he's not controlling me? so when I realized I won't be able to eat without the money I get from working I'm not coersed into entering the workplace? so when ranchers kick natives off their land in chiapas because they have a deed and the natives don't it doesn't infringe on their right to live? They were subsitence farmers after all.
As for marginal utility, it is not opposed directly to Marx, it predates Marx, and the two could be synthisied.
Every single anarcho-syndicalist/socialist I know uses the "work or starve" example. Do you honestly HONESTLY think there will only be ONE company to work for in, say, an anarchocapitalist society? That would be the only time you'd have a case. But there wouldn't. "Work or starve" is baseless because you're assuming you have one option of a workplace. And you're also assuming every unemployed person is near starvation.
The boss is at your mercy. If you don't like him, quit and get another job.
There could be a synthesis of the two I suppose. There's actually an Austrian economist (Kevin Carson I think) who attempts to "reconcile" the labor theory of value with marginal utility. But to me that's like mixing water and oil. The two are completely mutually exclusive. One's based on consumer demand, the other based on arbitrary "fairness".
"so when ranchers kick natives off their land in chiapas because they have a deed and the natives don't it doesn't infringe on their right to live?"
That axiom is completely baseless, because in order for it to be true then it would have to be true in every single situation. Even if there were just one solitary example of an Indian being kicked off that land and being able to go somewhere else and live comfortably, the axiom is debunked.
When they continue to use the code word diversity, I see doom on the horizon.
People may be created 'equal' however cultures are not, and this mad rush head long into multiculturalism and diversity will effectively destroy the base of society. Also the points he made at 1:20, seem correct with a traditional capitalist society, however he remarks these points are not the current standard; I agree, as welfare seems to be gaining popularity in opposition to the honor of earning your way.
rezek71 6 months ago
Parecon is modern-day anarchism. May it spread far and wide, and bring about the new society we need!
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I agree, we need something besides capitalism. Between the extreme right-wing Capitalists and the extremely naive Neo-Communist Venus Project advocates, I believe that parecon, being probably just left of center, is a wonderful proposal. We actually have a parecon business in my city that I frequent called "Mondragon", a vegan cafe/political bookstore. ^_^
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I think Parecon makes a valuable addition to the social anarchist movement. It adds valuable insight into the dangers of a coordinator class, something often ignored by the anarchist movement.
QuatFax 1 year ago
I read it in an anthology of political philosophy by Aeon Skoble who is my teacher and put together the anthology. It is in the Grundrisse, and he basically says that it is the illusion of capitalism and talks about the individual character being dependent on the larger whole, which I believe to be true to a certain extent but there are plenty of variances in the individual in aptitude, character, etc. Why can't the individual retain that individuality and use that to benefit the whole?
paraelpaz 1 year ago
why so complicated? sounds like a scam. if the U.S. hadn't been robbed blind for about a hundred years, the average US citizen would be out in the world compeating with the big emotionless empire apparatusses we see today, apparatus from rich blood manipulating the system we already had, ( a system with only two flaws, sexism and racism) simple and conservative.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
@Idolcruisefix
A scam? Umm, read the facts. We know that direct democracy works, we know that capitalism creates a division in class and labour, and we need an alternative. This man posits an alternative, and parecon communities today are proof of concept as far as how practical and doable it is. So, where does the scam part come in?
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS have your yacht's but not at the expense of my canoe... a few jerks make the rich look bad by working over the poor until they are basically slaves. then the classes are not at fault, the few jerks who bend and manipulate our laws are at fault., soooooo jail them and move on.... the masses don't jail their secular "masters." and the rich are not these "masters" the rich are just more usable tools to help guide a few jerks into ego maniacle nirvana. Class hass nothing to do with it.
Idolcruisefix 1 year ago
For a society to be just and respectful of human rights that should not necessarily have to lead to a classless society. Marx thinks our natural progression through economic systems starts with feudalism and ends with communism, it is evident that is not the case. There is a certain need for a reevaluation of our system with the allowance of countless human rights abuses. But why do we need a classless society in order to respect what should be inalienable human rights?
paraelpaz 1 year ago
Every person can be seen as an equal but they are not equal. Genetics breed inquality as Albert points out. Geography however should not be a determinant of whether or not human rights are respected. Individualism does not need to equate to the injustice that exists in our society. Marx's theory of denying individualism and that it is an illusion of capitalism is flawed in his very existence. How does he account for thinkers like himself?
paraelpaz 1 year ago
as people who eloquently consolidate the crux of thousands of conversations had with other members of society into digestable formats, i.e. books, treatises, manifestos...
lipslipslipsbootyboo 1 year ago
I am not exactly sure if you are implying that Marx was just regurgitating conversations in a consolidated way. My point is that he himself is an independent thinker and in his writings displayed individualism. Fact is we are all still talking about ideas he introduced proves him to be unique. There is something about him that sets him apart from others.Otherwise, why his writings? Why publish his ideas as opposed to the countless other conversations having been had whether written or spoken?
paraelpaz 1 year ago
no man is an island. any of the great thinkers we now worship, modern or ancient, could not have come about simply because they alone as solitary individuals possessed all the ideas they ever put to paper. for proof, tell me one single idea you have that isn't linked to some sort of influence from someone else you've known or read.
sometimes authors do publish texts consisting of interviews with other thinkers.
and I'll bet even Marx had someone to help him edit his stuff right?
lipslipslipsbootyboo 1 year ago
Yeah, I never said that people who are individuals have no outside influence. There are obviously individuals who are more extraordinary than others. With ideas compiled and carried on as long as Karl Marx he was absolutely out there for his time. My point in saying that is philosophically he did not recognize individualism. Just because we are influenced by others doesn't mean that we are not individuals, that is all I am saying.
paraelpaz 1 year ago
@paraelpaz yeah, I can get down on that! word
but help me out here, what Marx writings are you pulling from regarding the denial of individuality thing? I haven't gotten into the word of Marx himself very much, so a suggestion of what to look for where would be appreciated. thanks
lipslipslipsbootyboo 1 year ago
michael albert, amy goodman and noam chomsky= cool people! :)
Ullbritt 2 years ago 9
Example: I used to work in a dental lab. We would take $10 worth of material and make a crown that was $1000+ by the time it hit your mouth. The lab's and the dentiist's need for profit mark everything up, forcing the consumer to generate more money. Profit is the answer to a problem that profit creates itself.
thoughtsurfer1 3 years ago
The basic problem of capitalism is profit, not the people running things. We need to go back to the original slogan "from each according to ability, to each according to need".
thoughtsurfer1 3 years ago
We have to specific; "Each according to ability, to each according to need" was discussed by Karl Marx, and before him Louis Blanc. It is not an "original slogan" of capitalism, it's the opposite of capitalism.
johnmacward 2 years ago
Parecon requires that we radically change all of our fundamental social relations and institutions, at the same time... Including
- individual ownership
- paying people for their knowledge/skills vs. their physical labor
- making choices without some group a) determining who will be affected (how?), and b) have the "affected" vote.
What means will we use to accomplish this? Will people volunteer? Or will it require laws, hence force? Utopia through guns, one more time...bad Fido, bad.
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
There is no force advocated in any ParEcon theory. In fact one of the driving forces behind the idea is a clear rejection of central planning and state power. You also forgot another big step which is the abolition of the market.
pixilatedpirate 4 years ago
What is the strategy? Education? Or something else. People have been trying to educate people to be kind/fair/considerate to one another for millenia - and we have the reality of today. People act in their self-interest, and there understanding of self-interest is limited to their scope of knowledge - which means - they take care of their own. NOT committees that determine who is affected by what choices and having those "affected" vote!!!
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
What you are saying is that human behaviour exists in a social and economic vacuum. You can't look at the greedy actions of people and say "hey, this is just how humans are", without analysing why they are compelled to act in those ways by structures which are outside of their control: the market, corporate division of labour, etc.
paulb0188 4 years ago 10
2 Things. 1) It is possible we have a misunderstanding, and are talking apples and oranges, but I do not thinks so. 2) You state that I must "analyze" "why". No, I do not. We are not talking about why people are they way they are, we are talking about how they are supposed to move from today into the Parecon future.
cannot "not" analyze I am not saying that. I am not discussing the
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
This is another problem with anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-socialism. Any sort of drive for profit is considered "greed".
Put it this way: according to this extremely black-and-white viewpoint, a lower-middle class family, who decides to open a business downtown in order to help their kids go to college later on, is exercising "greed". If a lower-class individual tried to open a tiny business in an attempt to gain profit and move into the middle-class, that would ALSO be considered greed.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
@paulb0188
I believe that greed is a natural human emotion, same with empathy, same with hate, same with love. These characteristics exist on a base level in different proportions from person to person, and are accelerated and reduced by the environment in differing proportions from person to person. There are some people who are just greedy, and there are some people who are just selfless. But, the least we could do is create an environment that aims to encourage these positive emotions.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
Hmmm. First you say "no state power". In the next sentence you say "the abolition of the market." How are you going to "abolish" the market? If you are not going to use "central planning" or "state power" or "force" to abolish it, then I like your system, and am curious how you expect to abolish the market otherwise.
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
How would you abolish the market in a anarcho-syndicalist society based on parecon? Even if just 5 people decided not to follow parecon and market their own goods instead, a market would RISE UP. People would follow in suit (since they would see that they could earn more profits that way).
The only way you could truly abolish the market is through force/state socialism, which is anathema to anarcho-syndicalism. This is why anarcho-syndicalism/parecon would collapse like a house of cards.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
So the idea is that folks will start doing it voluntarily, if it works and is indeed better, it will spread virally, each of the new institutions corporate with each other inside of the current market system becoming stronger etc. Eventually gaining power to make lager changes in society by making old institutions irrelevant. All this obviously happened as change is being made in all spheres of social and political live as well.
pixilatedpirate 4 years ago
OK - give me a sense for the path from here to there? People giving up property and responsibility voluntarily? What if people refuse? LAW = FORCE. Parecon is EXACTLY like communism/socialism in the utopian NEED at its base, for human beings to start acting against their nature, which is pecking order, non-equal, with extremely localized knowledge and values. It is simply not going to happen "on its own."
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
This is a long term strategy to work for lasting and fundamental change, which is what a revolution is technically.
pixilatedpirate 4 years ago
Seriously - could you accomplish this with 10 of your friends? NO. You can't. How about a home owners assoication where people have real, shared interests? NO. You can't. How can we accomplish this with whole societies where people don't understand the interdependencies? Get real about this! IF it happens on its own, that is called free-market capitalism.
RationalHumanBeing 4 years ago
Anyone who would downvote you is a fool. That includes everyone who believes in Parecon.
Kudos.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
@RationalHumanBeing You think capitalism isn't based on having some other group make choices for us? Capitalism is totally collectivist! In capitalism, people have to listen to their bosses and/or to stockholders.
Individualism does not exist within economics; all economies are collectivist. The relevant question is not individualism vs collectivism, but whether the collectives should be oligarchal (government bureaucracies and corporations) or democratic (trade unions and cooperatives).
QuatFax 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheWALOS 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QuatFax
Your argument is purely semantic. Every social structure involves a community, what you're doing here is twisting words to suit your point. Capitalism is as collectivist as the southern United States in the 1800s, which is to say not at all. However, capitalism is equally as communal as socialism, because it requires community participation, but capitalism is not collectivist. Stop taking the piss.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Capitalism is totally collectivist. Any business that employs more than one person is a collective (meaning a group of people who work together towards some common purpose). That is the very definition of collectivism.
Now, it is true that there are some people in capitalism who are self-employed. But that isn't specific to capitalism (it can exist in many forms of socialism as well). And the reality is that the bulk of any economy will be made up of collectivist enterprises.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
collectivism |kəˈlɛktɪvɪz(ə)m|
noun
the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS collective [kuh-lek-tiv]
adjective
-forming a whole; combined: the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries.
-of or characteristic of a group of individuals taken together: the collective wishes of the membership.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Thank you for proving my point. Your argument is semantic, nothing more.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS It is not just semantic. The point is that capitalism falls victim to the same criticisms that it lobbies at "collectivist" ideologies like socialism: it is not focused on individual freedom.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Like I said, just because a criticism can be applied to both concepts doesn't mean that both concepts are the same. Socialism is vastly more collectivist (by definition) than Capitalism is (by definition). You can't just say "both systems require a collective, so their both collectivist", because every system requires a collective, and the term collectivism refers to a very specific philosophical perspective. So, I'm not sure what you're actually trying to argue.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS See, but socialism ISN'T more collectivist than capitalism. That's the point. Socialism as an ideology focuses more on the collective, but the reality is that both systems utilize the collective equally. In capitalism, the collective is the corporation. In socialism, the collective is the worker-run enterprise. But in both cases, collectives exist. It's just that in capitalism, collectives are oligarchal, while in socialism, collectives are democratic.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
But, we can actually only really find near-ubiquitous collectivism in one. No matter how many straws we grasp at, Capitalism is not a collectivist framework. It's a framework that involves a collective, but that's as far as it generally goes.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS The collective is no more present in socialism than in capitalism. Socialism (or, at the very least, many forms of socialism) is not opposed to self-employment or any other form of individualist economic activity. It's just that WHEN collective activity is undertaken, it has to be done democratically.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Again, collectivism has nothing to do with the utility of the collective, and everything to do with collective welfare. So again, socialism is vastly more collectivist than capitalism.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Where do you get the idea that it's about collective welfare? That wasn't even in the definition that you gave.
Get this straight: collectivism is not an ideology. There is no group of people who say "we're collectivists." It's a general term to describe a general arrangement based on collective operation.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Also, collectivism has nothing to do with the collective's utility, and has everything to do with the collective's well-being being a priority over the individual's wellbeing. Socialism focuses more on the collective as a whole, like you said. So, I'm willing to say that Socialism is more collectivist. Still not sure what you're making this argument for, though.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS The point of this argument is as follows: fear of socialism often focuses around a fear of collectivism, and I understand that. In many ways, I consider myself an individualist. But the reality is that within any functioning economy, much activity is done in collectives. This fear is misplaced; it applies no more to socialism than to capitalism. I mean to alleviate individualist fears of socialism.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
There's a difference, though. The collective's potential is focused differently in both systems. Capitalism uses coercion and darwinism, and Socialism uses democracy and volition. So, again, and again, and again, Socialism is more collectivist.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS How does that make it more collectivist? You've stated that the collective is free and voluntary in socialism, but coerced in capitalism (something I totally agree with). But that doesn't make the collective any less real in either case.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
"But that doesn't make the collective any less real in either case."
It does make collectivISM more or less prevalent, though.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS No it doesn't. All it proves is that the collectives were not established voluntarily. It doesn't say how many there are relative to society.
Again, for collectivism to be prevalent, society has to be made up of collectives. Whether those collectives are democratic or oligarchical makes not difference.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
By this definition, every collective is collectivist, no matter the size, nor the intention behind their culmination. If you put fifty bitter enemies in a room together, their engaging in collectivism. At this point, I fail to see the usefulness of the word collectivist. Which is probably why it doesn't actually mean what you think it means.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS No it wouldn't; the fifty enemies would have to work toward some common goal to be a collective.
Yes, every collective is collectivist. What exactly makes that a criticism of my argument.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So, now your argument means that collectivism only exists when a collective all works towards a common goal, so how is Capitalism collectivist if it's coercive and socially darwinian?
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Not "now." That's been my argument all along.
They do work toward a common goal. Workers in capitalism all share the goal of enriching the owner. It's not a goal they've voluntarily chosen to take upon themselves, but it is still a goal that they are all working towards.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Are you sure about that? I'm sure the 80% that makes up the working class does NOT aspire to enrich the owning class, mate. That's not a capitalist economy's ubiquitously common interest and common goal. No, capitalism is taking what you can get in a rat-race for first place, meaning that the collective has no goal in common (collectively), meaning that by YOUR definition, capitalism is not collectivist.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Again, they aren't choosing to enrich the boss. Perhaps they aren't even aware that they are enriching the boss. But their work is producing riches for the boss. That's what they are all working towards, whether they know it or not.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So, collectivism is when you work towards a common goal regardless of whether or not you know you're doing it? So, if you lock fifty enemies in a room together to save the planet, that's collectivism?
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS If the enemies actually work together, then, yes, it is.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
What if they spend their entire time fighting? What if they start killing each other, but they're (unbeknownst to them) saving the world simply by being locked up and kept from the rest of the population. By this definition, a psych-ward filled with dangerous people incapable of understanding why they're locked up is a manifestation of collectivism. This is a definition of the word that I've never personally seen or heard about ever, and I'd love to see where you got it.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS In that case, their being locked up together would not, in and of itself, have anything to do with saving the world. If the goal is only to keep them from the rest of the population, one could simply lock them up separately. Or deport them. Or kill them. Their being in the same room is irrelevant.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So, if there's a group of people who share a common goal, whether they know it or not (also, I have no idea how someone could have a goal without being a aware of it, but whatever)), it's collectivism, unless they're geographically isolated from one another?
I'm getting to the point where I'm pretty convinced that you haven't any idea what you're talking about. That's OK, just stop talking about it until you know more :P.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS When did I say anything about geographical isolation, one way or another?
Look, I told you where I get this definition. It works for the purposes that I use it (i.e.- in talking to capitalists).
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So, you twist a word's connotation in order to communicate with a specific demographic of people? This is a completely different position than the one you took when this discussion began. Again, I say you're just taking the piss.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS You asked me where I got the definition; I'm simply telling you. And I don't twist it myself; I accept whatever twisting they have given it.
What argument, exactly, did I state at the beginning that is "completely different" from what I'm saying now? I believe at the beginning I explained to you how I define "collectivism," not where I got that definition.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Your contention at the beginning of this argument was that the meaning of the word collectivism is in fact the meaning you assigned to it. Now you say that someone else assigned it wrongly and you had simply adopted it in order to communicate with them. Sounds like BS.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I said nothing of the sort. I made no contention at the beginning of where I got the word; all I did was explain to you what I meant by "collectivism."
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, as long as we're making up definitions, capitalism is the ideology wherein people roll in lollipops and pick beautiful flowers known as capitals. That's the definition, prove me wrong.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS See, as I don't worship the English language, I don't actually care how you use the word capitalism. I'm going to criticize a system based on private ownership of the means of production and wage slavery. Whether that system is called "capitalism" is irrelevant; the point is that it must end.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Oh, stop the rhetorical nonsense, you sound like a member of TZM for fuck's sake. If there's no agreed upon meaning or generally accepted connotation to any word, every word is meaningless and communication is impossible. Using that definition of collectivism, an ACTUAL conversation about collectivism would go fucking nowhere.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS So who has to agree to this "agreed-upon" meaning? My capitalist opponents and I agree when we use the term "collectivist." You act as if there's some magisterial body with divinely-sanctioned powers to decide upon the meanings of words, and anyone who disagrees is some sort of heretic.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Of course not, but words have meanings that are generally agreed upon, if they didn't, they wouldn't generally mean the same thing from person to person. We all agree, through our use, that the word 'is' is a third person singular present tense verb. Nobody decided this fact, but the word means what the word means, and the connotation is what the connotation is.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS True. But if the people I'm talking to don't understand my use of a certain word, we don't debate the etymology of that word. We just stop, discuss our respective definitions of that word, and than continue our original conversation.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well fine, but that also means that such a discussion would only mean something to it's participants. It's like people who get into groups and discuss intelligent design, it only means something to them, because everyone else has a differing notion as to the nature of reality.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Well, typically discussions do focus on the people present. If someone else wanted to know what we were talking about, we could always explain to that person what we meant specifically.
The difference is that the CONCEPTS that we are discussing are perfectly real, it's only the word choice that is questionable. As far as intelligent design is concerned, the concepts are bullshit.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Try and see this from my perspective. Say Noam Chomsky walks in the room and joins the conversation, and you're discussing how capitalism and socialism are both collectivist. He'd probably tell you that that's not what the word means, and would have to cater to your notions of the word in order to participate. And he wouldn't even be able to transfer the content of the discussion anywhere else or cite it, because nobody else uses that word in that way.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Other people do use that word in that way, actually. I can say from personal experience that a LOT of people use that word in that way.
If I had such a conversation with Noam Chomsky, perhaps he'd correct my word choice. In which case I'd explain to him what I meant by that word, and we could then civilly continue our discussion. Unlike some zealots, Chomsky isn't going to go ape shit over a single word.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I'm not going apeshit, but if we just invent new meanings for different words on the fly, you could rationalize yourself out of any situation. "Oh no, I said this, but I actually meant this, so yeah, you just didn't understand". How about taking some personal responsibility for knowing the content of the discussions you wish to have, and using language that isn't totally fucking ambiguous. Because if you did that, we'd agree.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Do me a favour, and I'm being sincere. Cite me one published instance of someone defining "collectivism" as "the presence of a collective with a common goal". Which is essentially the definition you gave me. If you can prove to me that this definition is common place, I'll say I was wrong.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS If you really think that I'm just "taking the piss," why are you bothering debating me? If you really don't see any value to my arguments, why are you so intent on refuting them? It's clear that, correctly or incorrectly, you see no value in my arguments. Why waste your time? Don't you have something better to do?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Because I'm not in the interest of ignoring people who need assistance. I wouldn't be a very good socialist if I was ;)
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Yeah, because socialism is all about proper syntax. Forget worker control over the means of production. The real key to an ideal society is having everyone use words in exactly the manner that the encyclopedia intends.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
THAT'S taking the piss. Fuck it.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS What a wonderful expression of your vocabulary. "Piss" and "fuck" are such complex, descriptive words, aren't they. You sure are proving to me the value of your extensive linguistic knowledge.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Are you suggesting that my use of slang vernacular reflects on my linguistic competence, or my linguistic performance? If so, you're fucked. I'm sorry, but I really cannot help someone who thinks in such black-and-white terms.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I'm simply marveling at the fact that someone so zealous about proper use of syntax would choose words like "fuck" or "piss." I question your competence not so much as your sincerity.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, since those words really have nothing to do with syntax, and since vulgarity has nothing to do with linguistic knowledge, I'm going to go ahead and say you have no idea what you're talking about.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I just wonder why someone who cherishes the English language as much as you do wouldn't want to find a better word than "fuck" to use against me. Certainly you could find a much more precise term than that, something that would increase my vocabulary and further my understanding of the language (which you seem to think should be an important goal in any conversation).
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Criticizing my use of vulgarities does nothing to serve your argument, mind you. I'm not here as your personal dictionary, I just saw that you used a word in a way that was just silly. I pointed out why it was silly, and you've made about thirty posts worth of rationalizations for your poor and inaccurate choice of words.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I'm rationalizing nothing; I really don't care if you think my word choice is silly. I'm interested in figuring out why this is of such significance to you. I have never met anyone who puts this much effort into correcting what she views as poor word usage.
And I'm sure I took you to mean that my word choice was "silly" when you immediately described me as "taking the piss" and implied that I was deliberately deceiving people with my word choice.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
If language is the medium we use to relay information, then our information can only be as good as the language used to relay it, if the language is fucked, the information is probably fucked too. That's my problem.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS So I'll figure out how people will best understand the language I'm using based on the way those people use certain words. And in the case of capitalists, that means using the word "collectivist" in a certain manner.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
That's all well and good, but this implies that you have a primary use of the word that you use outside of conversations with capitalists. What would that be? Because, I happen to recall you saying that socialism isn't generally more collectivist than capitalism, but by almost every scholarly definition and use of the word, I'm lead to an antithetical understanding of the word. So, if it's not that definition, what is it?
TheWALOS 1 year ago
As far as your vulgarities, all sarcasm aside, I really wonder why vulgarity is necessary to use against someone who happens to use a single word in a somewhat different manner.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
It's just my choice of emphatic expression.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I really don't understand you. Even if I were misusing the word "collectivism," why would you care? You agree with the concept, and its not as if there's some group of "collectivists" for me to offend. What difference does my word choice make to you?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I care, because telling people bullshit is, y'know, wrong. Because I'm not purely self-interested, and I don't want people receiving bogus information.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS So a mis-defining of one word makes the entire argument bullshit? No matter that you agree with the concepts I am arguing; because you disagree with my word choice, you must assume that I am totally self-interested and have no desire but to deceive people.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I agree that socialism and capitalism share characteristics, like having a collective of people. But I don't agree with the notion that they are both equally collectivist.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS But do you agree that capitalism is no more based on individual freedom that socialism?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I think they're both based on individual freedom, but in differing capacities. Capitalism values the freedom to pursue one's self-interest without a coercive state. Socialism values having social benefits given by all to benefit all, creating a different kind of social freedom.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS See, that's where I disagree with you on an actually meaningful issue. Capitalism is not about individual freedom; it's about a small, moneyed elite, in league with the government, controlling the masses. Individuals are subordinated to the will of an oligarch.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
That's a pretty narrow perspective, regardless of whether or not that happens to be the outcome of a capitalistic society. Under capitalism, everyone has the right to enter the market and compete, nobody is legally restricted from pursuing their own self-intesest. That's the freedom that capitalists value. And that is a legitimate type of freedom for one to value, nothing wrong with it, really. The end result is a different story, though.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS My argument regards the end result, not the ideal. The theories of how laissez-faire capitalism would work sound great, but the reality is that no such society could ever be achieved because it is based on a contradiction. I'm arguing that the reality of capitalism is just as destructive to individual freedom as socialism.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Actually, free market capitalism would work if people had adequate purchasing power and the education to wisely allocate their dollar-votes within the economy. I wouldn't say it's impossible, just really really difficult to do.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS It is impossible, because capitalism relies on a government to protect private property, but governments always distort the market.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@TheWALOS We can argue about the semantics all we want. The fact of the matter is that capitalism succumbs to the same criticisms that are always given to "collectivist" socialism: in capitalism, as in any economic system, people have to work as a group toward common goals. Capitalism is no more individualist than any other economic system. It's just that, in capitalism, groups of people are directed hierarchically. In socialism, groups of people run themselves democratically.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Just because criticism is shared between them doesn't mean that they are entirely synonymous concepts.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Capitalism is an economic system. Collectivism is a general characteristic, one which happens to apply to all economic systems (including capitalism).
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
collectivism |kəˈlɛktɪvɪz(ə)m|
noun
• the theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state.
That sounds like an economic system to me.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS That's the definition that the dictionary gives... the dictionary frequently gets these definitions wrong. According to many dictionaries, socialism is defined by government control of the economy, anarchy as chaos, and communism as totalitarianism. None of those definitions describe any of those ideologies; socialism is worker control over production, anarchy is voluntary, democratic order, and communism is communal ownership within a stateless society.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, even the citations in the wikipedia article disagree with your position here, if you care to read them.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Oh, I see. Because the wikipedia citations say something, it MUST be true!
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
They're citations. Citations are used as references for information. If no citations are credible, you might as well burn all of our medical journals. Chances are if the citations on a particular subject are in consensus, there's probably a good chance what they say is accurate.
I think you just don't like the fact that collectivist philosophy doesn't conform to your argument. Stop taking the piss.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS But the fact that you can find SOME citations that agree with your opinion doesn't make it true. You have to prove that those citations come from credible sources. Thus far, you're only qualification is that they are the wikipedia citations. That isn't exactly a seal of accuracy.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, you're making the claim, and haven't offered really much of anything besides an opinion to support your claim. So, as Russell would say, the burden of proof is on you to prove your contention to be true.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS If the burden of proof is on me, why would you reference citations? Why not just see if I can offer evidence first?
I only said any of this because you brought up wikipedia citations.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, just because the burden of proof is on you doesn't mean I can't try and show you why you're wrong on the matter.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Again, there is no such thing as collectivist philosophy. Collectivism is a characteristic, not an ideology.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Cite your contention, please. I'd like to know where you're getting the notion that Collectivism is just an umbrella term for any system involving a collective.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS It's a simple matter of roots and suffixes. Collectivism is collective-ism, meaning some condition or action relating to the collective.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Now, you're basically arguing for the semantic value of the word, and the connotation you WANT it to have, in the context you WANT it to exist in. And you're flaunting it.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Actually, I'm arguing about a concept, the concept of a society based on group effort. And I chose to use the word "collectivism" to describe that society. And somehow you have a problem with that.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Yes, because that's not what the word means, that's not the word's intended use, nor does it bare the word's actual connotation. You're basically taking a word and re-coining it as your own. Which leads to confusion, and ultimately leads to an ineffective use of language. As a student of both Linguistics and Economics, I take slight issue with people saying misleading things.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS You still haven't actually demonstrated to me that I'm misusing the word. In this case, the burden of proof falls on you, as YOU are asserting that my use of the word "collectivism" is wrong.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I told you, the encyclopedia citations and dictionary definitions both don't support what you think it is. Since we don't have the luxury of a scholar to refer to, we'll have to refer to the scholar's works (which is what the wikipedia citations are comprised of), and they disagree with you. So, you are really the barer of the burden of proof. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you're taking a piss and being overly defensive here. It's OK to be wrong.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I'm still just really amazed that you would attack me over word choice.
And again, if we go by what the dictionaries and encyclopedias say, socialism is big government, anarchy is chaos, and communism is totalitarianism. You and I both know that those definitions are wrong.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
I've actually never read or seen an encyclopedia that actually misrepresented a certain ideology. Usually they're done pretty good justice when things like encyclopedias are concerned, because sources are cited, and rigorously scrutinized.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS And don't quote me the dictionary again. By the dictionary's standards, socialism is the ideology that the government should own everything. You and I both know that that isn't true.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Yeah, some dictionaries suck. But if citations of any kind can't be trusted, I honestly cannot help you.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS That doesn't mean that citations of any kind can't be trusted; it means that word use is subjective and we should assume that because a dictionary says something, that is its only meaning.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
The word is subjective like every other word, but a word is only as good as it's connotation, and the connotation you posit it having is certainly not the connotation it's come to have.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS It is the connotation that it has when capitalists talk about socialism being "inhumanly collectivist and opposed to individual freedom." Capitalists fear socialism because they fear individual rights and interests being subordinated to the common goals of a group. I have heard them call that "collectivism." And it is in that context in which I use the word "collectivism." They understand my point, and they are the people I am trying to reach.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, if a capitalist really understood the meaning of the word collectivism, they probably wouldn't be capitalists. In my opinion, though. But, just because one group of people misuses a word doesn't really give you carte blanche to misuse it in the same way. Why not call their bullshit and say "Hey, you said this one statement, and you got it completely wrong".
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS A) I wasn't aware, until just now, that there might be anything wrong with their definition (and I'm still not convinced that there is)
B) When trying to change people's minds, it generally isn't a good tactic to start by criticizing their syntax. That typically makes those people feel like I don't respect them, and thus be unwilling to have a debate with me.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Well, attack my argument, not my tactics. It's not my job to hold your hand.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I never told you to "hold my hand." You asked me why I don't correct capitalists who use a certain definition of the word "collectivism." I explained to you that doing so would do more harm than good; it would make them feel like I didn't respect them.
I am attacking your argument.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
So, if someone uses a word wrongly, don't correct them, just attack them on their level on their terms?
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Exactly. Ideas are more important than words. Words change with time and use. Ideas are bulletproof.
QuatFax 1 year ago
@TheWALOS Explain to me, if you will, why this matters? Why would you fight with me over a definition? All I'm trying to do is prove that socialism does not destroy individuality. Why would you, someone who, as far as I can tell, is a socialist, try to stop me from doing that?
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Because you're doing it wrong :P
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@TheWALOS I'm doing it "wrong?" Why? Because I chose the term "collectivism" to distinguish something from individualism? Clearly you don't disagree with my point; you just don't like my using the term "collectivism."
QuatFax 1 year ago
@QuatFax
Yes, exactly. Because you're misusing the word, collectivism doesn't mean what you think it does. That's my point. We all misuse words to which we only have an inkling of their meaning, it's no big deal, just stop grasping at straws, mate.
TheWALOS 1 year ago
@RationalHumanBeing against-me fallacy. say you want to explain that the wellfare state is a drain on the economy and should be done away with. if someone where to ask you "well, how do you propose we should deal with the poor who depend on it?" it would be beside the point. the feact that a hypothetical senario affects certain people does not make it personal and it does not disprove the hypothetical.
fede2 1 year ago
holly shit dude this guy has the same name as me i'm talking first and last
am2ice 4 years ago
I've been reading Parecon lately and it is a very interesting analysis of what is possible, of an ideal to attain to.
jnietzsche333 4 years ago
Thank God this guy is crazy.Otherwise he might catch on
NeoKondcious 4 years ago
Wow, citing your own bullshit as the source for your bullshit.
With all of these facts and quotes you have provided, How can I live with ever wasting my time reading and studying Parecon and Chomsky's ideas?
Excuse me while I go commit suicide for wasting my life in a sea of lies which have been so painstakingly revealed to me as such, by 123sbw.
maybememe 5 years ago
Wow, this guy is obviously not an economist but a total boob. What he's described is bascially a cottage industry commune - super, I guess we can kiss industrialization good bye. But then again, he did say Parecon is for anarchists and socialists - not exactly the deepest thinkers of our time.
123sbw 5 years ago
So you are saying that Noam Chomsky, an anarchist, is not a "deep thinker"? He was only named arguably the most important intellectual alive by the NY times and is the most cited living author. He is also down with parecon by the way.
pixilatedpirate 5 years ago
Chomsky's political work holds NO academic weight. He cites his own research as the authority and even that is poorly done - misciting and misquoting the sources. Don't forget, this is the guy that said survivors of Cambodia's killing fields can't be trusted for the truth of the atrocities.
123sbw 5 years ago
Chomsky's works are interdisciplinary - very few people (Sens, Gunder Franke) are able to publish cross-disciplinary work that are recognized across the board.
samdonuge 4 years ago
Where and when did Chomsky discount the accounts of the survivors? As far as I can tell, he criticized Western media accounts of Pol Pot's regime as anti-communist propaganda. Where does Chomsky cite himself except to say something like, "In a book of mine, I once argued..."? Check any of his bibliographies and you'll find nothing but people not named Noam Chomsky.
eatme690808 4 years ago
You're citing the New York Times as a legitimate source for truth? LOL! Chomsky's right on U.S. foreign policy, but wrong on literally everything else because his axioms that he deduces his views from are just plain false.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
We are a post-industrial society, first of all. Second, how about you read someone's full argument instead of judging him based on a 3-minute interview, which you obviously have not done. Parecon does not do away with industrialization, that's completely senseless...Albert is not a primitivist in any sense.
jnietzsche333 4 years ago
Anarcho-syndicalists build their political philosophy on the axiomatic
equivalent of a sinkhole. Their axioms are debunkable within SECONDS.
For instance, one of Chomsky's key axioms is "Power, unless justified,
is inherently illegitimate."....that means that not only the State,
but also inequality of money/property (capitalism) is "power exercised
over another."
(Cont.....)
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Yet only one example is needed to debunk this. How does a man who
earns $400,000 have more power than a man who earns $300,000?
The only argument ANYONE could make saying this means more power is
that he has more money to buy stuff and shape the economy. But shaping the economy more is NOT more power, plus this
is necessary because land/resources are scarce and NO ONE has a claim
to original resources. The alternative would be to assume that everyone "communally" owns all natural resources.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
How is shaping the economy not more power? It's really one of the only powers there is, why do people go to war? to claim resources (shaping the economy) why do we want people to be educated? to get jobs in the economy. why does almost everyone need money to live? because all resources are in the economy. Everything is connected to the economy, having more power in shaping that, is having more power in everything.
McOath 3 years ago
Inequality of wealth/capitalism is not the root of war. It's the State combined with its own resource/power interests. It's government-plus-"capitalism" aka mercantilism.
Shaping the economy is not more power because it does not allow individuals to control one another. In actuality, it helps one another. Also, one must remember that resources are scarce and this is an extension of property rights (no one has a claim to undisturbed natural goods in their original state).
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
resources are the economy, if we have a grain based economy it does not stop being an economy, a state or individuals interest in resources is there interest in the basis of the economy. commodities (resources). If I have more money I can start a buisness, and hire people: directly controling their lives, it does allow people to exploit eachother.
And because resources are scarce control of them (control of the economy) is power. And that power should be in the hands of the people.
McOath 3 years ago
""""If I have more money I can start a buisness, and hire people: directly controling their lives, it does allow people to exploit eachother."""""
^This is classic Marxist nonsense. The business is at the MERCY of both potential employees and consumers. I currently work at my school's info desk in the student union. Am I being exploited because I have a boss? No, I'd just quit if I didn't like my situation. My decision to work for my boss is VOLUNTARY.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
"""And because resources are scarce control of them (control of the economy) is power. And that power should be in the hands of the people."""""
^^If you assume that "the people" should control the resources, then you think that pieces of unused land not yet claimed by anyone are possessed by "the people" by definition. Who decides this? How does private ownership infringe on right to life if, for instance, the land is in the form of a twig or a blade of grass?
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
Also, the only way you could argue "exploitation" exists is if you believed in the labor theory of value (as opposed to marginal utility). The labor theory of value is 100% false. That's why a band like Nickelback earns millions when a FAR more hard-working talented band like Dream Theater earns way less.
Under the logic of "exploitation theory", Dream Theater is being exploited by Roadrunner Records for not being paid the full fruit of their labor, and should overthrow them.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
So when my boss tells me what to do, he's not controlling me? so when I realized I won't be able to eat without the money I get from working I'm not coersed into entering the workplace? so when ranchers kick natives off their land in chiapas because they have a deed and the natives don't it doesn't infringe on their right to live? They were subsitence farmers after all.
As for marginal utility, it is not opposed directly to Marx, it predates Marx, and the two could be synthisied.
McOath 3 years ago 2
Every single anarcho-syndicalist/socialist I know uses the "work or starve" example. Do you honestly HONESTLY think there will only be ONE company to work for in, say, an anarchocapitalist society? That would be the only time you'd have a case. But there wouldn't. "Work or starve" is baseless because you're assuming you have one option of a workplace. And you're also assuming every unemployed person is near starvation.
The boss is at your mercy. If you don't like him, quit and get another job.
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
There could be a synthesis of the two I suppose. There's actually an Austrian economist (Kevin Carson I think) who attempts to "reconcile" the labor theory of value with marginal utility. But to me that's like mixing water and oil. The two are completely mutually exclusive. One's based on consumer demand, the other based on arbitrary "fairness".
coffeeintheface 3 years ago
"so when ranchers kick natives off their land in chiapas because they have a deed and the natives don't it doesn't infringe on their right to live?"
That axiom is completely baseless, because in order for it to be true then it would have to be true in every single situation. Even if there were just one solitary example of an Indian being kicked off that land and being able to go somewhere else and live comfortably, the axiom is debunked.