"Wages are based on time." This is somewhat true, but what I am referring to is the fact that, in a given day, a worker at a factory or company can perform $200 worth of work in a day, and only get paid slightly over $7.25/hr. Theoretically, you would be paid a total of $58 for $200 worth of work, while CEOs on average, get paid 400 times the minimum wage for "managing" the workers.
BreakYourChains, how can you say "worker at a factory or company can perform $200 worth of work in a day, and only get paid slightly over $7.25/hr"? Nothing is worth anymore than what someone is willing to pay for it. There's no such thing as intrinsic worth.
DackBev, if you believe that it is acceptable for people to produce more than what they receive in monetary worth in order for the "owner" of the company to accrue a profit, than I don't know what to say to you. You obviously come from a fairly wealthy background, for most working people would not agree with you. Why should Big Business owners receive incomes several hundred times more than the minimum wage, while almost 50 million people are in poverty?
BreakYourChains, your statement: "you believe that it is acceptable for people to produce more than what they receive in monetary worth" doesn't make sense. The two are not related. A person is agreeing to sell his labor for a mutually agreed upon price. There's nothing wrong with making contracts for whatever terms anyone wishes to contract. Why shouldn't big business owners receive high incomes? If the income is in their contract, then that's what they should receive.
And another thing, DackBev, no one should have the right to live in an illustrious mansion while people are starving and struggling to subsist, especially when that mansion is capable of other uses--such as a homeless shelter, a youth house, an orphanage, etc. If someone is not currently occupying a house that they own, they have other houses/homes in their possession, and they have no intention of living there permanently, they should give the house up to someone else!
I couldn't disagree more. I think people should have a right to own what they build or purchase with their labor, without limit. Helping those in need should be voluntary, not forced. Expropriation of the product of labor and trade (private property) is inconsistent with a voluntary anarchistic society.
Did the capitalists build their houses? Not likely. More than likely, construction workers built these illustrious houses, not the people that will be living in them. Helping those in need only goes so far, as inequalities in wealth frequently cause such problems as famine and poverty, and occasionally, wars based on profit.
BreakYourChains, as long as you support voluntary measures, I don't see a problem. I'm against forcing people to help others with material needs. All assistance and aid should be voluntary. I don't care what economic system anyone wants to engage in, as long as they allow voluntary interaction and people to own the fruits of their labor as their private property.
And yes, I DID say that collectivization and expropriation of labor and capital would be voluntarily. This means that the majority of the population would have to agree to live in an anarchist society, as well as the economies of the respective anarchist communities. Collectives only go so far in this society, as many collectives, while voluntary, are not as "prosperous" as capitalist-owned businesses, causing their workers to work for smaller wages.
I think anarcho-communism could exist "within" an anarcho-collectivist society (specifically on a community basis). Or as a result of the evolution of an anarcho-collectivist society. I see gift economies as practical on a limited scale, brought out especially as a result of a social revolution. (or in anarcho-communist communities), yet more in more "casual" way, not in the sense of a formal economy. Yet currently, gift economies can be a way (small scale) to function outside of capitalism.
I basically agree. I consider myself a libertarian communist, though I am an anarchist first and foremost. I generally think a gift economy, when used on a completely voluntary basis, is possible under anarchism. I'm curious, why do you think collectivism is the most practical/desirable economy? I confess, I don't know that much about parecon, collectivism, or even individualist anarchism.
Sorry for the late response I've (consciously) gotten back in the last day. The real difference(s) between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism is we believe in the remuneration of labor based on toil (or time and effort) as opposed to "each according to his needs", living by the idea that individuals determine their own needs and shouldn't be confined by any distributive body. Also, we believe in collective ownership of the means of production (employing participatory democracy).
The real differentiation arises in the remuneration, because this implies (or can imply) the use of currency (or something acting as currency) which anarcho-communists believe could lead to the need for a state. Also, as to the distribution of goods, anarcho-collectivist (usually) advocate a non-competitive communal market (I use the term market regrettably for lack of a better one) as opposed to a communal storehouse usually employed in anarcho-communism.
I could see a gift economy possibly arising, yet as to having it act as the dominant economic system (outside of say supporting groups), I think it would have to be the result of many years of progress/social revolution under anarcho-collectivism.
LaughingMan, I noticed that you are in favor of a form of parecon (or anarcho-collectivism). What is your feeling about gift economies and anarchist-communism? Do you think it would be practical in the 21st century?
And what is wrong with abolishing private property, DackBev? You claim that you don't want to be "deprived of your labor or property," but private property is owned by corporations and capitalists, not working people. Rather than use land collectively for the good of everyone, capitalists purchase land to for factories, so they can accrue a profit. The advocates of private property frequently deprive the working class of the fruits of their labor, not the other way around.
You taking someone's private property by force is depriving those people of the fruits of their labor. They labor to build and/or purchase these things. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "advocates of private property frequently deprive the working class of the fruits of their labor."
First, I'm not forcing collectivization on anyone, but A LOT OF PEOPLE would be happier without class distinctions. Second, the working class do not manage and own the factories and workplaces where they work. The capitalists make their profits in the first place by paying their workers less than what they actually produced in a day. They use part of this money to buy more factories. That is the legacy of private property.
BreakYourChains, "paying their workers less than what they actually produced in a day" is not a meaningful statement. Wages are paid in money, not produce. Those who volunteer to work for wages are paid for their time, based upon a mutually agreed upon price for that time.
Do you honestly believe this? If I came from a working class background and did not have a college education, I would have little choice on the profession at which I would work...so saying most people "volunteer" to work for wages is misleading. Also, I would argue that there is not much agreement on the amount of pay that the average worker receives for their time. True, strikes and unions can influence that, but you will still only get paid slightly above the minimum wage.
In a free country, if you want to set up a collectivist "business" you have every right to do so. You say you don't want to force collectivization. Ok, I don't want to force individualization. No problem. There are many employee owned businesses in the U.S. Start one of your own. If you're not going to force it on people then that's your only alternative.
And even if there is formal entrepeneurial equality, that is opportunity to act on one's perceptions to gain capital and assets. Due to credit rationing and asymmetrical information there is no real equality. Even if an asset poor individual has an idea even if they are willing to pay loads of interest, the bank will not give them a loan. People who do not have alot of collateral are essentially screwed.
The World Social Forum and US Social Forum are not about immediately abolishing private property. They are, as LaughinMan0X said, a convergence of people of various ideological backgrounds that are debating on alternatives to the present society.
hey thats me in the anarchist block. yes, it was great and don't believe any of the media bullshit about 2000 people being there there were many times that number.
You were in the anarchist block (I marched with them probably 1/2 the way)? Who are you with? IWW? On the number of people, the official count (according to the world social forum) was 10,000. The permit they were issued was for 2,000, thats probably the extent of the media's "evidence" for the amount of people in the march.
There's still quite a few cops around, the largest normal concentration I've seen, and I've been to China. Ah this is fun, discussions on direct action, neo-liberalism, I was able to debate the RCP, and have since been referred to one of their leaders who "knows history", and should be able to "point out a few things I might have not realized yet."
"Wages are based on time." This is somewhat true, but what I am referring to is the fact that, in a given day, a worker at a factory or company can perform $200 worth of work in a day, and only get paid slightly over $7.25/hr. Theoretically, you would be paid a total of $58 for $200 worth of work, while CEOs on average, get paid 400 times the minimum wage for "managing" the workers.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
BreakYourChains, how can you say "worker at a factory or company can perform $200 worth of work in a day, and only get paid slightly over $7.25/hr"? Nothing is worth anymore than what someone is willing to pay for it. There's no such thing as intrinsic worth.
DackBev 4 years ago
DackBev, if you believe that it is acceptable for people to produce more than what they receive in monetary worth in order for the "owner" of the company to accrue a profit, than I don't know what to say to you. You obviously come from a fairly wealthy background, for most working people would not agree with you. Why should Big Business owners receive incomes several hundred times more than the minimum wage, while almost 50 million people are in poverty?
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
BreakYourChains, your statement: "you believe that it is acceptable for people to produce more than what they receive in monetary worth" doesn't make sense. The two are not related. A person is agreeing to sell his labor for a mutually agreed upon price. There's nothing wrong with making contracts for whatever terms anyone wishes to contract. Why shouldn't big business owners receive high incomes? If the income is in their contract, then that's what they should receive.
DackBev 4 years ago
And another thing, DackBev, no one should have the right to live in an illustrious mansion while people are starving and struggling to subsist, especially when that mansion is capable of other uses--such as a homeless shelter, a youth house, an orphanage, etc. If someone is not currently occupying a house that they own, they have other houses/homes in their possession, and they have no intention of living there permanently, they should give the house up to someone else!
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
I couldn't disagree more. I think people should have a right to own what they build or purchase with their labor, without limit. Helping those in need should be voluntary, not forced. Expropriation of the product of labor and trade (private property) is inconsistent with a voluntary anarchistic society.
DackBev 4 years ago
Did the capitalists build their houses? Not likely. More than likely, construction workers built these illustrious houses, not the people that will be living in them. Helping those in need only goes so far, as inequalities in wealth frequently cause such problems as famine and poverty, and occasionally, wars based on profit.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
BreakYourChains, as long as you support voluntary measures, I don't see a problem. I'm against forcing people to help others with material needs. All assistance and aid should be voluntary. I don't care what economic system anyone wants to engage in, as long as they allow voluntary interaction and people to own the fruits of their labor as their private property.
DackBev 4 years ago
And yes, I DID say that collectivization and expropriation of labor and capital would be voluntarily. This means that the majority of the population would have to agree to live in an anarchist society, as well as the economies of the respective anarchist communities. Collectives only go so far in this society, as many collectives, while voluntary, are not as "prosperous" as capitalist-owned businesses, causing their workers to work for smaller wages.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
I think anarcho-communism could exist "within" an anarcho-collectivist society (specifically on a community basis). Or as a result of the evolution of an anarcho-collectivist society. I see gift economies as practical on a limited scale, brought out especially as a result of a social revolution. (or in anarcho-communist communities), yet more in more "casual" way, not in the sense of a formal economy. Yet currently, gift economies can be a way (small scale) to function outside of capitalism.
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
I basically agree. I consider myself a libertarian communist, though I am an anarchist first and foremost. I generally think a gift economy, when used on a completely voluntary basis, is possible under anarchism. I'm curious, why do you think collectivism is the most practical/desirable economy? I confess, I don't know that much about parecon, collectivism, or even individualist anarchism.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
Sorry for the late response I've (consciously) gotten back in the last day. The real difference(s) between anarcho-collectivism and anarcho-communism is we believe in the remuneration of labor based on toil (or time and effort) as opposed to "each according to his needs", living by the idea that individuals determine their own needs and shouldn't be confined by any distributive body. Also, we believe in collective ownership of the means of production (employing participatory democracy).
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
The real differentiation arises in the remuneration, because this implies (or can imply) the use of currency (or something acting as currency) which anarcho-communists believe could lead to the need for a state. Also, as to the distribution of goods, anarcho-collectivist (usually) advocate a non-competitive communal market (I use the term market regrettably for lack of a better one) as opposed to a communal storehouse usually employed in anarcho-communism.
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
What's a "communal market"?
DackBev 4 years ago
I could see a gift economy possibly arising, yet as to having it act as the dominant economic system (outside of say supporting groups), I think it would have to be the result of many years of progress/social revolution under anarcho-collectivism.
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
LaughingMan, I noticed that you are in favor of a form of parecon (or anarcho-collectivism). What is your feeling about gift economies and anarchist-communism? Do you think it would be practical in the 21st century?
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
P.S., LaughingMan, I wish I could be there!
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
Did you have to leave?
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
No, I'm just not there. I forgot about it, and I wouldn't have been able to get transportation there.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
And what is wrong with abolishing private property, DackBev? You claim that you don't want to be "deprived of your labor or property," but private property is owned by corporations and capitalists, not working people. Rather than use land collectively for the good of everyone, capitalists purchase land to for factories, so they can accrue a profit. The advocates of private property frequently deprive the working class of the fruits of their labor, not the other way around.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
You taking someone's private property by force is depriving those people of the fruits of their labor. They labor to build and/or purchase these things. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "advocates of private property frequently deprive the working class of the fruits of their labor."
DackBev 4 years ago
First, I'm not forcing collectivization on anyone, but A LOT OF PEOPLE would be happier without class distinctions. Second, the working class do not manage and own the factories and workplaces where they work. The capitalists make their profits in the first place by paying their workers less than what they actually produced in a day. They use part of this money to buy more factories. That is the legacy of private property.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
BreakYourChains, "paying their workers less than what they actually produced in a day" is not a meaningful statement. Wages are paid in money, not produce. Those who volunteer to work for wages are paid for their time, based upon a mutually agreed upon price for that time.
DackBev 4 years ago
Do you honestly believe this? If I came from a working class background and did not have a college education, I would have little choice on the profession at which I would work...so saying most people "volunteer" to work for wages is misleading. Also, I would argue that there is not much agreement on the amount of pay that the average worker receives for their time. True, strikes and unions can influence that, but you will still only get paid slightly above the minimum wage.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
In a free country, if you want to set up a collectivist "business" you have every right to do so. You say you don't want to force collectivization. Ok, I don't want to force individualization. No problem. There are many employee owned businesses in the U.S. Start one of your own. If you're not going to force it on people then that's your only alternative.
DackBev 4 years ago
And even if there is formal entrepeneurial equality, that is opportunity to act on one's perceptions to gain capital and assets. Due to credit rationing and asymmetrical information there is no real equality. Even if an asset poor individual has an idea even if they are willing to pay loads of interest, the bank will not give them a loan. People who do not have alot of collateral are essentially screwed.
funkmasterswede 4 years ago
Looks like you guys had a lot of success abolishing private property.
DackBev 4 years ago
The World Social Forum and US Social Forum are not about immediately abolishing private property. They are, as LaughinMan0X said, a convergence of people of various ideological backgrounds that are debating on alternatives to the present society.
BreakYourChains 4 years ago
hey thats me in the anarchist block. yes, it was great and don't believe any of the media bullshit about 2000 people being there there were many times that number.
blockader 4 years ago
You were in the anarchist block (I marched with them probably 1/2 the way)? Who are you with? IWW? On the number of people, the official count (according to the world social forum) was 10,000. The permit they were issued was for 2,000, thats probably the extent of the media's "evidence" for the amount of people in the march.
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
This looks like it must have been fun.
HanifXHier 4 years ago
Oh it was, quite fun. I'm still amused by one of the phrases from the anarchist block: "No war, no state! These damn liberals better get it straight"
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago
That <i>is</i> a kickass phrase.
HanifXHier 4 years ago
Eh, fuck cops, flying ones and all. I forgot this thing was in Atlanta. I don't know what I was thinking before.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago
There's still quite a few cops around, the largest normal concentration I've seen, and I've been to China. Ah this is fun, discussions on direct action, neo-liberalism, I was able to debate the RCP, and have since been referred to one of their leaders who "knows history", and should be able to "point out a few things I might have not realized yet."
LaughingMan0X 4 years ago