Where will they get money?Maybe the magic money fairy?How will everybody do something productive without having a boss?Someone is always in charge and they will always have helpers.hilarious
@AlmondPOP I like some of what they were going for but it didn't work for them.I prefer to be free of any kind of dependence on government.Either way,that's not what this silly video is about..
Psychology experiments show having the opportunity to slack off if others are working and not get caught, people will do so. *That* is something that is documented.
Everyone wants to look good on camera, dudes! Tsc tsc.
That video is such a bullshit propanganda. These are questions I would even answere if someone would crash into my train-cabine, holding a cam and a fat microphone in his hands. That's just the first thought about a boss (stereotypes) which automatically makes our brain say: He's a fucker. This video proofs nothing and is in all cases USELESS. There's no reason to discuss about it here.
I am not a boss of any sort (ok, I am responsable for some people but I do have a boss) and I am quite used to work with teams. If teamwork is made correctly it works much better than individual work. I do have a boss and I am glad I do. And I am glad I am the boss of other people, sometimes people need to be told what to do, so, if the boss is there creating solutions and listening to other people and making decisions accordingly, it works great. I need my boss, and probably so do most of you..
@Aqlor If the boss creates good solutions and does not coerce others into accepting what he proposes, rather, the workers accept what the boss says because it 'makes sense' to them, and there is not a chance they will get fired just for disagreeing with him, then it's ok xD
@GlobalAlternateMedia So you insist on getting rid of bosses AND being supported by the survivors?
If we lived in Candyland, where food and consumer goods come free with gommint checks, would you still work? Would you do something creative for teh community? And if that's true, why are the slums of Michigan and Indiana the result of such policies?
What sort of idiotic logic is this? Are you TRYING to be funny?
No idea, what you meant with your reference to Michigan and Indiana, please explain.
Would I still work if everything was free? Nope. I wouldn't, I'm an Egoist Communist. In Anarchist Communism all association and relations are voluntary, thus those who do not work will be disassociated from. I will work because it is in my self-interest. Everything is only free on the precondition that you produce what is demanded.
@GlobalAlternateMedia Gary, Indiana. Detroit, Michigan. Flint, Michigan. These cities have had their "bosses" pushed out or gotten ridden of. The workforce remains - and yet, there is mass destitution and poverty. These cities are literally falling apart, despite being flooded with federal money.
And if I insist on having a boss, what then? Must I be re-educated or disposed of? Or will you just shoot my boss? And how will you get the survivors to produce?
I can't find anything about those states having no bosses... Not very credible. Source please?
And I do not understand the context of you referring to more productive, more wealthy, etc. Please explain. Are you arguing that if you are rich it must mean you worked the hardest?
@GlobalAlternateMedia Look at the statistics in these cities regarding the declining presence of US Steel, GM, Chrysler, and subsidiary businesses related to them, during the 1960s to present. Look at the empty factories. Look at thesoaring unemployment figures for these cities.
This isn't exactly rocket science, kid. And I am arguing that the wealthy, as a group, mainly became (and stayed) that way because they were sufficiently talented and worked for their money .
Dude, I was asking for source that those states functioned WORKERS SELF-MANAGEMENT, i.e. having no bosses. You fail to do so, why? Because all those companies you name still have bosses. We, libertarian socialists, do not call for the replacement of the capitalist boss by a state boss. All bosses need to go. You completely misunderstood the point.
@GlobalAlternateMedia A city devoid of business, with empty shops and a quarter of teh workforce out of work, is not being "controlled by bosses". It's exactly the opposite that's taking place - workers are lying idle, in poverty, spending their leisure time selling drugs and trying to rob and kill each other.
I didn't "fail" to do anything. Look up Gary, Indiana on the web if you don't believe me. The bosses are gone, with the expected misery and destitution as a predictable result.
Dude.... Having no bosses means not having no business. It means, read carefully now: DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. You think that having no bosses automatically means having no business and no employment? Again, it means WORKERS SELF-MANAGEMENT. Then you bring up Soviet Union, which show you are completely obliviousness of the concept "boss" All you need to do is Google workers self-management.
@GlobalAlternateMedia No, I'm not "oblivious" to the issues. In the early Bolshevik regime, anarchists were welcome as part of their faction. Bosses were disposed of - and, as expected, production dramatically plummeted. The Bolsheviks were forced, by sheer necessity, to cobble together some sort of replacement for entrepreneurs. They even tried a return to capitalism under the NEP.
The early Soviet state was even worse off than what it eventually ended up being.
That's funny, because in the Spanish Revolution of 1936 production increased enormously after it was put under workers control. And the FaSinPat (Factory without Bosses) factory also managed to increase productivity. Why? The same reason you say entrepreneurs work harder, they have a stake in the factory. Entrepreneurs do not produce any goods, to compare that to workers (producers) and claiming one works harder than the other is completely subjective.
@GlobalAlternateMedia Production increased enormously? Hmm - then what was all the starvation and deprivation all about then? If they were so brilliantly efficient, why did they so dramatically lose?
Read Hugo Thomas in "The Spanish Civil War". He has lots of fun things to say about anarchists.
Let's put it this way. If you try to do harm to or rob my boss, you'll have to deal with me first. Calling yourself an anarchist won't save you.
Are you serious? Why did they lose? Because the facists had superior fire power. I suppose since communist Vietnam beat capitalist America it means communism is better than capitalism does it?
Your reference to Hugo Thomas seems an appeal to authority (= fallacy).
Bosses are thieves as they live of the labour of by using the threat of violence.
"you'll have to deal with me first"
Aren't you the internet tough guy, go be an infantile jerk somewhere else.
@GodOfTheInternets The Left fascists had plenty of firepower, provided by Stalin, but they used much of it against each other. Actually a main reason for Franco's victory was because he wasn't much of a fascist, as was the Falange - his elite Moroccan Muslim volunteers, most as black as pitch, defeated the socialist fanatics of the Republic not with better weapons but with superior skill, courage and daring.
I'd suggest you stop being the jerk. Some of those bosses are my friends, you arse.
@GodOfTheInternets I don't see much to distinguish between an anarchist, Marxist, Nazi or any other form of socialist pirate. All of them say one thing and do another. All of them ultimately want to steal something that doesn't belong to them, and take advantage of the people who do all the work in society. All of them turn to violent terrorism when they don't get their way.
The anarchists got what they deserved in the Spanish Civil War. If you try the same where I live, you'll get the same.
Using the old "left fascism" trick too! Very clever. What an obnoxious cunt you are. Don't you want to serve the rich in a more polite manner? I think a lot of the Wall St. cunts on the golf course would prefer a more castrated and shrill reactionary tone, to match their mildness and privileged ease, but I guess you need to vent the little cop within you somehow.
@DrCruel "If you try to do harm to or rob my boss, you'll have to deal with me first."
You sound like a true Pinkerton thug. If only all of you apologists for rich degenerates and cynical business-friendly politicians spoke this frankly! "Grrr, don't go near my boss, for I love his strong hand patting me on the ass; he's my master!"
Go pick up the golf balls the Koch brothers trail behind them on the green while you're at it, if you want to be rewarded like a good guard dog for rich scum.
@agapeiron Whatever. I read my history, and I lnow what you aristocratic Left fascist shits did to the entrepreneurs of Russia and Eastern Europe. Your avarice-filled piratical comrades made a waste of Eastern Europe for over half a century.
Go set up your slave states and your gulags somewhere else. You class hatred and envy for the products of other people's hard work doesn't fly with me. No one's buying that Left-wing bullshit anymore.
@DrCruel Actually the libertarian left has been a huge critic of Stalinism and Leninism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and way before you have. Which is why the best libertarian socialists (be they anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho- or left communists) perished in the Gulags or were killed by the Cheka when obscenely rich American capitalists that you probably worship like Armand Hammer and Fred Koch (father of Koch brothers) were supporting them.
Actual working-class people do way more hard work than the fucking rich parasites you adore, you stupid cunt. So while you try to turn the hatred of injustice into the hatred of products, you distort the picture to your own fear-driven conservative mentality. A mentality that worships money and the trendy paraphernalia of Paris Hiltons in the first place!
@agapeiron Justice my arse. Covetous envy is more like it.
Like I said. No one's buying that anarcho-fascist crap anymore, least of all me. I like my boss, and intend to defend him - and if you don't like that, if that fills you with an unbridled fury, well then tough shit Sherlock.
And if noisy petulant fuming is not enough for you, that's fine too. I'll be more than happy to deal with you and yours when the time comes.
@DrCruel Actually, capitalists love fascists, which is why the richest people pour money into fascist movements (to save their own asses from working-class militancy). Calling an anarchist or libertarian socialist a fascist from someone that loves capitalism is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Capitalism creates the conditions for fascism then lets fascists sprout up all over the place.
@DrCruel Of course you'll be happy to deal with me and mine "when the time comes"-- You'll be a fascist thug, like all the other hired guns and statist cunts, sold out for wealth and power to die like good dogs.
Go suck off your boss, and put some of that "unbridled fury" (nice one) into the suction. Maybe you'll get a little richer!
You're the one on an anti-capitalist video whining and moaning about your boss. So you can fuck off first, pal. Go be a fascist thug elsewhere.
I'm sure there are plenty of commercial hip hop music videos on Youtube with the BLING you'd like to see since you love profit so much. Feast your eyes on something you love if you hate it here! Also, if you have a TV you can just watch jewelry infomercials where they rotate useless wealth and ornaments 24/7.
@agapeiron It's not "profit" I like. It's equity and fairness. It's avaricious, self-righteous thieves I can't abide.
But you're right about one thing. I've wasted enough time with you. We know where the other stands, and there's nothing else to say. So I'll let you sputter on - you're not likely to amount to anything.
Feel free to make some parting, asinine comment about fascists and whatnot. I'm done with you.
@DrCruel Usually when I poke fun at conservatives they don't know the arguments for their own positions and retreat. This is understandable. Liberals do the same things. I hope one day that liberals and conservatives will get together and admit that they are fundamentally in agreement about the big issues.
But let's be frank. You're not leaving on your own will. I just pointed out that you're out of place here and now, one comment later, you're leaving! I'm glad you agree with me. Bye.
As for your claims that the USSR abolished bosses, this is completely and utterly rubbish. Before the NEP the USSR implemented War Communism (google it), War Communism meant among others that: All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced and discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot. You can look this up for yourself. Bosses become even more powerful and tougher on workers.
As for your claims that the USSR abolished bosses, this is completely and utterly rubbish. Before the NEP the USSR implemented War Communism (google it), War Communism meant among others that: All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced and discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot. You can look this up for yourself. Bosses become even more powerful and tougher on workers.
Secondly, imagine a world with only entrepreneurs (a world without workers), nothing in this world would be made, nothing would get produced. Imagine a world with only workers, this still would produce commodities (and thus wealth). Why is this? Because workers create the wealth. The reason bosses are rich is because they make money of off other people's labour, i.e. theft.
@GlobalAlternateMedia Actually, a "world of only entrepreneurs" describes rather well the early Americans. Business activity was frenetic, and those who engaged in business pursuits were prized and protected. A general, steady increase in national prosperity was the result.
I'd suggest you read some of the works of Ayn Rand. At the least, read up on the Soviet "experiment" after they managed to "dispose of their bosses".
Like I said in previous message: no bosses means no bosses, it does NOT mean replacing the Capitalist boss with the State boss, like the Soviet Union did. The Soviet Union had bosses.... I... I... really don't get how you can NOT get this. No bosses means no bosses, not replacing one boss with another. No boss = is no capitalist AND no state bureaucrat (i.e. USSR).
Do me a favour and please educate yourself... (Also Ayn Rand sucks donkey balls).
Lastly, you arguing I should just leave in the woods....
You support Ayn Rand right? So you hate our current system (Corporatism), then why don't you move to a country that has laissez-faire capitalism? Hong Kong?
What a silly argument. Anyone who claims another person should move to another country if he disagrees with the system is a closet authoritarian.
@GlobalAlternateMedia No, I've got some real problems with Ayn Rand's Objectivism. But she did live through a period when shopkeepers, businessmen and other "capitalists" were being disposed of. She has some very valid insights about Leftist ideology based on her experiences.
I already live in a country that has the system I like. It's also a free country. You need not live in parts of the US where industry and business prosper - although this suggestion appears to very much bother you.
Lastly, by entrepreneur I mean someone who owns property and by definition someone who hires labourers to produce goods. Entrepreneurs do not produce anything, so it can by definition not work. (there's a difference between being self-employed, collective self-employment -- HAVING NO BOSS -- and being an entrepreneur, i.e. being a boss over the labour you bought). An entrepreneur buys labour, in a world with only entrepreneurs labour cannot be bought, hence it can never exist.
@GlobalAlternateMedia And I'm telling you that entrepreneurs work harder than their employees, mainly because they have the most stake in whether a business succeeds or fails. It's YOU who insist on this arbitrary, empirically unjustified distinction.
If I want to work for someone, or want to have someone to work for me, you have no say in it. I honestly don't care how you feel about that.
Perhaps entrepreneurs work harder, but they don't produce anything...
People who are self-employed generally work harder, an economy without bosses simply means collective self-employment (workers cooperatives/workers self-management). Look up Kevin Carson's Organizational Theory (I believe it is avaible for free)
As for the NEP, you know when it was introduced? After the Kronstadt Rebellion, which was a Left-wing Anarchist rebellion against Bolshevism calling for an end to centralism
@GlobalAlternateMedia At the very minimum, they generate potentially profitable opportunities for other workers to sell their labour. And most of them also do the work themselves, when they can. I know of an owner of lemonade trucks that sub-contracts his trucks out to drivers - during the summer he gets up at 6 am, makes the lemonade, fills ice cream orders of drivers from the day before, and then drives one of the trucks himself.
If you got rid of him, his business would not last long.
Perhaps entrepreneurs work harder, but they don't produce anything...
People who are self-employed generally work harder, an economy without bosses simply means collective self-employment (workers cooperatives/workers self-management). Look up Kevin Carson's Organizational Theory (I believe it is avaible for free)
As for the NEP, you know when it was introduced? After the Kronstadt Rebellion, which was a Left-wing Anarchist rebellion against Bolshevism calling for an end to centralism
@GlobalAlternateMedia Ah no, they're not. But as they are the hardest working, thus the most productive, and thus the most wealthy, they are prime targets for kleptocrats masquerading as "anarchists".
Survivors of the traditional purges that follow successful Leftist revolutions. Because Leftist ideas are stupid, and because people don't conform to them, teh Leftists ultimately use mass killings to get their way. What remains after these killings are "survivors".
Authoritarian self-proclaimed Marxists usually end up massacring people. In most Social Anarchist revolutions there was little killing, only in war. The Spanish Civil War lead to a terror of both sides, right- and left-wing terror, so I could easily proclaim that all right-wingers support mass murder, but this would be childish.
What about YOUR fucking apologetic nature? Russian revolution? How would you defend that from one of the millions that died because of the Russian revolution?
Fucking useful idiot communist apologetic dumbass. You'd probably pick the Taliban over your own country if left with the choice.
@SuperRegisteredUser: The Russian Revolution is a genuine proletarian revolution, the urban and rural proletariat had seized the means of production and organized themselves as workers' councils (sovjet in Russian). Anarchist writer Iain McKay also found no fault with the Revolution itself. Not until 1918 did Lenin implement a bureaucracy over them and then the repression (of the workers, mind you) started.
And no, you DO have to sort out the hacks, you can't read every hacks crap writing. F.A. Hayeks nobel prize and international fame means you sort him way above some unknown hack like Cox, who's writing has not got any impact.
Or do you propose one should read EVERYTHING that has ever been written?
@DonKhoi There is litterally millions of words written every day, most of them lies. Also, stop making of terms like intellectually lazy, especially since I showed you he was wrong.
And no, Cox is wrong and Hayek was right, had Cox had anything to say of interest then the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Cato institute or any other organisation had had countered it. If fact he had nothing interesting to say.
@SuperRegisteredUser: Cox is not wrong at all. In fact, you should question your ignorance first, so much that you mistook MANAGEMENT OF INVENTORY (stock control) with rationing; and even confused "hierarchical" with "hieratic."
If you have read Cox thoroughlyly, he had answerd the question how wise inventory/stock control can help suppliers and distributors satisfy consumers' demand in a decentralized, polycentric, libertarian socialist economy.
@SuperRegisteredUser: "There is litterally millions of words..." In STANDARD English grammar this should have been: "There ARE LITERALLY (one T only, mind you) millions of words..."
Moreover, you again allege that they are lies WITHOUT proving. You cannot call those who disagree with you "liars."
@DonKhoi I also recommend you read everything written by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Johan Norberg, John Stossel, John Locke, Aristotle.
Feel free to get back to me once you've done so you lazy bum.
@SuperRegisteredUser: Do you want to delay me so that, while I bother myself to read all those writers, you can go around parroting apologetics of capitalism?
Moreover, a free market, consisting of self-employed people and workers' coops yet EXCLUDING CAPITALIST BOSSES, can still operate smoothly without encountering economic calculation problems since money and price mechanism will still exist.
@DonKhoi Fucking grow up you little shit. You call yourself "worker" and you've probably not worked a day in your life. Anarchists are nothing but children that doesn't understand the world.
Also, it was a joke telling you to read all that you fucking retard.
And finally, it most be comforting knowing you could always call someone an "apologetic" when they disagree with you. I am not an apologetic because their is nothing to be apologetic for. You're the one that should be.
@SuperRegisteredUser: Well, well. Now you resort to ad Hominem insults and Argument by Vehemence.
I've been working as a office worker and now I am experiencing unemployment and wish I had the means of production so that I won't have to be a wage-slave to any!
@SuperRegisteredUser: Well, to wage-slavery ICONOCLASTS like me, those who defend that institution are all apologists, be they capitalists or happy wage-slaves.
"We have looked at the mechanism of a self-regulating system of stock control, using calculation in kind, which would enable us to keep track of this supply and demand." - Robin Cox
No, a stock control has been tried and has failed. When you start such a program the supplier will have a strong incentive to give less to save and the taker will have a strong incentive to take more to gain, all of this is of course unsustainable.
@SuperRegisteredUser: "the taker will have a strong incentive to take more to gain." Stock, especially food productions, may deteriorate or become obsolete (software). So it would be unwise to take too much.
@DonKhoi I've already showed you that he was dead wrong. Don't think I don't know what you are trying to do. You are asking me to read this hack shit to delay me so you can "win" the discussion. If I respond to the hack shit you will simply find new hack shit and ask me to read it too.
"Stock control" is another word for rationing which, regardless of whether you call it communism or not, was what the Soviets DID.
@Keva06: To be an Anarchist means to be anti-capitalists because true Anarchists oppose all hierarchical social-economic organization (including capitalistic wage-labour).
but Anti-capitalists don't oppose ALL hierarchical social-economic organization. e.g. they just want one class, don't want upper middle and lower classes based on wealth ect...
be honest. imagine all of us with no boss or I prefer "person who guide you to do something". Second, everybody with enough money to live nicely...WTF!!!. The problem resides in MONEY. Erradicate money and the world will be in balance with its own resources
great interviews. It highlights the natural urge and preference for self-management and non-directed, socially valued work, inherent to everyone.
Unfortunately, many people see capitalism as inevitable, and fighting against akin to fighting against gravity.
but then again similar views were held on chattel slavery, aristocracy, universal suffrage etc. You just need to show people that there is an alternative, which will fulfill those common and widely held preferences and desires for freedom
Now we've established that you are both a liar and wrong. We've also established that you are intellectually dishonest since you end a quote mid-sentence, thus creating a straw-man of my position.
I'm adding you to ignore and next time discuss with someone you might think about the errors you made this time
Without a boss eventually people would stop working. I know it worked a short time in Spain, but to think people would work a life-time in a bread factory if they didn't have too is insanity. So the price of not having a boss is that your children will starve since no bread will get made.
@amazingyou1uber All people start of poor. Countries like Sweden, Norway, South Korea all started poor. To say they just want food shelter and money is an insult. The people I know in poor countries in Africa all want to bring the standard of living up to western standards, all included luxuries
And no, we in the west do no cause the poverty of others. It's not because of us they are poor and nothing we do or don't do will prevent them from being poor
@juliaisafilmbuff123 No and you are a complete retard for saying so. Wealth destroys poverty, if someone else get wealthy everyone else benefit from it.
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote - "Wealth destroys poverty, if someone else get wealthy everyone else benefit from it. " ---- Notice the lack of any proof.
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote -- "Without a boss eventually people would stop working." ---- Obviously you don't know any musicians. Many of them work long and hard for 30, 40 or 50 years for little or no money without a boss. You need to get out more.
@tom6612 You're such a fucking retard, clearly there's work that is so forfilling that people will do it without being forced to do so, clearly there's work that won't be done unless someone has to do it.
I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
@SuperRegisteredUser weote --- "I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
Wrong. I don't really care about what job i do to make money. I provide my own "forfillment" . So we see your debate method consists of statements baked up by zero proof. Incorrect assumptions and profanity laced attacks. Thats quite impressive. Your little world needs expanding ---"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
@tom6612 I'd suggest he/she also look at anarchist economic alternatives as an answer to that, – such as participatory economics, and its "balanced job complexes".
@SuperRegisteredUser: I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
Not quite, I will do that if my contributions keep the common streets, voluntarily agreed to be own by everybody, clean for my neighbours, friends, children, etc.
@DonKhoi That's because you have never actually done it. There's no way in hell a garbage man would volontary work 8 hours a day for 45 years. Unless you are a 65 year old retired garbage man you can't claim such a thing.
On top of that what you describe lacks a price mechanism, so even if you found people willing to do it (work 45 years as a garbage man) it still would work. cont.
@DonKhoi Read about the "economic calculation problem". Even if you could find people willing to do it (you probably could find one or two eager people, but I doubt a whole population) you still wouldn't know what a rational economic decision was.
Just trust me and read something like the wikipedia page on "economic calculation problem".
@DonKhoi That Robin Cox writing is filled with inaccuracies and it's not the first time I've ran into it. The fact that they predicted that the Soviet experiment would not work is all the proof anyone ever needs.
It's not a straw man to look on how workers coop would work if there only existed workers coop. Workers coop obviously model their coops on hieratic companies.
@SuperRegisteredUser: "Hieratic is a cursive writing system that was used in the provenance of the pharaohs in Egypt and Nubia that developed alongside the hieroglyphic system" [1] Goedicke 1988:vii–viii.
From Merriam Webster: "1. constituting or belonging to a cursive form of ancient Egyptian writing simpler than the hieroglyphic "
Use "proper English" so that I can understand you.
Roderick Long, a Left Misesian, had argued that firms under s genuine freemarket will be less hierarchical.
@SuperRegisteredUser: Mises attacked "Socialism" using his favourite Strawman Soviet Union, the economy of which is nowhere Socialistic. The Soviet Workers were still wage-slaves to the Soviet Bureaucracy, which concentrates the means of production in its hand. Proudhon was a Free Marketeer, but he still declared himself a "Socialist" solely on the ground that he opposed wage-labour.
Moreover, you flatly dismissed Cox' article as inaccurate without proving.
@DonKhoi Oh, the old "Soviet wasn't real communism". Also, are you seriously expecting me to write on youtube why Cox is a fraud? F.A. Hayek received the nobel prize in economics and he supported the argument, Cox is a hack.
I know your strategy, you give me some hack writers crap and you've delayed me until I can find what is wrong with his hack writing, then you give another hack writers crap.
@SuperRegisteredUser: "F.A. Hayek received the nobel prize in economics and he supported the argument, Cox is a hack." This is the Argument from Authority Fallacy. This, minds you, can also be applied to other Nobel Laureates such as Einstein.
Overproduction is not inherent to capitalism. Capitalism have not caused famine. I am not bitter, I am content with the capitalist world we live in, though some little things need to be fixed. You are bitter and cynical for thinking capitalism have a "work or starve" status quo.
The fact that some jackass go around asking leading questions means nothing.
--- You are so disconnected from reality --- Global poll: Wide dissatisfaction with capitalism 20 years after fall of Berlin Wall
--- from the article --- "A new BBC World Service global poll suggests that dissatisfaction with free market capitalism is widespread, with an average of only 11% across 27 countries saying that it works well and that greater regulation is not a good idea."
@tom6612 If you quote me out of context again I wont respond to you. There's some little things that needs to be changed (back to what it was from the beginning), such as trade agreements (which impairs trade) and bureaucracy (which impairs competition) but over all the system we have now is continually improving the standard of living. Any other system would go the other way which we have proof (Soviet Russia, North Korea etc.).
@tom6612 Also, if you think those figures mean anything you are way off. If all countries where capitalist then we would have an all time high of dissatisfaction of capitalism, since people wouldn't know anything else. The fact remains that people always flees from new experimental societies and in to capitalist societies. You can't be any more clear than that.
And no, I am not from USA, and no I will not defend the corporatism that USA call capitalism.
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote --- " Also, if you think those figures mean anything you are way off." ---
Those figures clearly show you have no idea what you are talking about and that you live in your own little world. Thats why you have to pretend they don't mean anything. You are not being quoted out of context. Your posts are right there for everyone to see. You are just making stupid, false statements. You need to learn how to handle reality.
@tom6612 You only quote the first part since the second part explains my statement. Reality is not a democratic process where the side with the most supporters are right, if that was the case the religion with most followers would be correct.
lulz, mr1001nights, you kiddie who has not grown the fuck up, you will have bosses, the collective dictation of the workers. I dont want them telling me what to do
The reason there are some warehouses full of unused stuff is the following:
The owner is waiting for the prices to go up. Like if it took 1 dollar to make a mike and the market price is 2 dollars you wait till you can get moar (since a profit of only 1 dollar is to little to pay for all expenses).
The demand is to low. No one wants to mikes.
It's no allowed to be sold. Many reasons could be behind this, like a toy being harmful, a calculator being to outdated etc.
I know pure capitalism doesn't take into consideration external effects or external costs, but I really don't see what that has to do with overproduction.
Overproduction are a mistake, nothing that benefits any1, and all societies does it, the different is that capitalism have market mechanisms to prevent it from happening to often or to much.
Your theories are off the wall. No1 benefits from there being warehouses full of unused things.
Firstly, how dare you imply I am a liar. Secondly, I'm the one talking about allocating resources away from uneeded consumer goods which to food production and i am the one who will cause people to starve? To say that fammine is inherent to communism (which by the way I do not subscribe to) is utterly rediculous.
For one thing Capitalism has caused famines as well, its cuased genocide just like communism (or governments that have themselves communist but actually hugely pervert the principles of Communism).
Overproduction is inherrent in Capitalism more than any other system. The only thing that limits production are the resources need to make it, not the demand for the goods themselves, because demand can be artificially created (by the advertsiing industry). so what links over production 'external effects'?.
@SuperRegisteredUser the fact that overproduction consumes resources (without even considering stoping so long as profit is viable) not only is this hazardous to the environment and humanity as a species, but also the resources could be used to improve peoples lives. While the market will try not to limit its over production is does not try to stop it all together. I literally can't beleive you don't see the logic.
@SuperRegisteredUser On a personal note, I find you bitter and completely anable of respecting alternative view points. Perhaps its not everyone else who is greed driven, who complies with all the horrible steriotypes you seem to be trying to propogate; I would suggest that you yourself are as you think other people to be. Go back to mummy and daddy's estate
Capitalism is not the only option, people can organise themselves without elitists who subscribe unthinkingly to the most irksome human steriotypes in order to justify thier privelege.
Stop twisting my words you cocksucking maggots. I never said you need to be starving to make mikes, I said you need to be rewarded with money to make mikes. If no work paid money no one would sit at manufactoring plants.
Also, anarchist are retarded for thinking people want freedom. There's only a handfull of people in the west that want freedom.
@SuperRegisteredUser The current 'production line' mode of production out-dated, needlessly watsfull with delpeteing resources and all in the persuit of money rather than aiming to meet peoples needs.The mike example is perfect: there are warehouses full up with microphones sitting there- this effectively a waste- because there are more mikes that people need; the energy and resources expended producing microphones should have put to work producing grain for the coming food shortages.
@yossariancomplex That comment shows you don't understand the full picture. There are lots of things not in use for various reasons, such as lack of buyers, but as a whole the entire system would collapse if you didn't allow that.
Imagine if you made rules against having a warehouse full of microphones not being put into use, then it would simply translate into a risk to the manufacturer. If you think there is money in not selling your wares then you are wrong.
@SuperRegisteredUser Under the capitalist system there is money to made in not selling your wares. Overproduction is a central tenet in capitalism. This means that if you produce more you can drive down the price of goods. It does not matter if you've go 10'000 microphones sitting in a warehouse if you've already sold 2 million. That is waste. Waste is central to capitalism.
@moasezapzap No, your ignorance is really showing now. There isn't a fixed number of microphones in the world and no one owns all the worlds natural resources. There is no point of holding wares, they get old (both in terms of technology and physically old), the price will not go up since holding microphones by no means prevent any1 else from making new ones, unless you personally own all plastic and metal in the entire world
@SuperRegisteredUser Ignorance of what? Economics? Capitalist economies have one golden rule: profit. If producing 2 million units instead of 1 million units reduces the price per unit then a capitalist will produce 2 million units. If this means that 50'000 or 100'000 are left unsold it is irrelevant. Because selling 1.9 million units will give you more profit than 1 million units. This is the waste inherent in the capitalist system. It's simple.
@SuperRegisteredUser It is not a case of 'holding' goods, it is a case of overproduction to reduce the overall price per unit. Overproduction means that once you have saturated demand what's left is overproduction. It is supply and demand. Capitalism does not take into account the externalities of it's actions.
Anarchists do, by the way, through democratic accountability.
@moasezapzap Your argument would be like Person A burns his own house to increase the value of his second house.
Or Person B would put 7 out of his 10 cars into long storage in order to make the other 3 more valuable.
It might work if they are rare cars and people don't know he has the others in storage (maybe there is only those 10 in the entire world and he says now there is only 3 left) but other than that there is no point to keeping wares unsold and unused.
@SuperRegistered You miss understand me; I don't want to prop up our atiqauted system which (as I see it) is driving us to destruction as a species, even possibly ruining the prospects of any future life on the planet, and all in persuit of money
@SuperRegisteredUser . I'm proposing we change the system entirely to one where we actually asses our needs before we begin producing things, and not produce a load of products we know we don't really know in order to make something as useless as a profit, when there are many other things we need to be producing: grain. An economy based on harmony, on balance of production with need, not production to inflate profit. It can and must be done if we wish to survive.
@yossariancomplex You can't asses need before hand. This is exactly why communist states have starvation. Without cost on things you can never know what is needed. In capitalism when something becomes more expensive it means there is little of it, and since it is more expensive more will be made.
With planned economy you loose that ability and you have to research every need of everyone, which is impossible.
@SuperRegisteredUser I think you are a bit silly. No-one ever starved from being deprived of microphones. Your need to label me as a communist speaks volumes. I beleive in communist principles but I am not a communist. Just because someone who called themselves a communist cause a fimne once does not mean someone who believes in communist principles would do the smae thing.
@SuperRegisteredUser Capitalism of course has never caused a fimane, never purposefully tsarved an entire race os people like the Biritsh east india compant did. communists also have pruposefully starved people. The irony is I'm talking about redirecting resources from cinsumer goods to food production and II'm the one who's going to cause a famine.
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
@SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
Everyone misunderstood the question about doing something productive or creative for the community, they thought it meant would you donate some of the money.
Also, none of these people would do enough productive to even produce that microphone he's using which is kind of ironic.
I mean without a boss no one would go to a job making cheap microphones for douche-bags to use in interviews on a train.
Everyone would accept only the most fun and awesome jobs.
History shows that that is not true. Look at the anarchists in Spain. Bossless, yet were very productive.
The army was run by no one. You could pick up a gun to fight, and when you didn't want to fight anymore you could hand your gun back in. As a result people from the whole world came to Spain to fight the fascists, again without any kind of boss or force. People like freedom and people are not lazy in nature.
You are right, what I was saying is that SOME things aren't done. I can definitely see people joining the army, writing books, making films etc. But no one would go eight hours a day to make cheap microphones for this douche to use. You need to pay them and you need their to be a boss it to work.
@SuperRegisteredUser Other than the guy at 3:14 (w/ the white beard), what makes you think everyone else misinterpreted the question about doing something productive or creative for the community? what makes you think what they interpreted was philanthropy? Lol so people in 3rd world who are in desperate need of money would only make decent quality microphones? Obviously it's possible for people to produce good quality microphones even when theyre not in desperate situations. URTHEDOUCHEBRAH
I think it's PRETTY obvious that he found that microphone in the trash. It's easy to find old electronic equipment thats been discarded. I've gotten a lot of TVs that way.
These people hardly think of the question or their reponse.
The question to ask these people is that if they didn't have a boss, what is the alternative? After evaluating the alternative routes I'm sure they would choose to have a boss.
anarchy would stabilize into at least some form of capitalism.
WaySide66 1 month ago
Where will they get money?Maybe the magic money fairy?How will everybody do something productive without having a boss?Someone is always in charge and they will always have helpers.hilarious
MrSafetymeeting 1 month ago
@MrSafetymeeting
spanish libertarian revolution 1936
AlmondPOP 1 month ago
@AlmondPOP I like some of what they were going for but it didn't work for them.I prefer to be free of any kind of dependence on government.Either way,that's not what this silly video is about..
MrSafetymeeting 1 month ago
@MrSafetymeeting
uh actually that is what this video is about
the spanish anarchists' (aka libertarians) did not have any boss
they owned the means of productions collectively and their were a lot more productive than before the revolution.
and the spanish libertarian movement did not end because it didn't work for them but it ended because of the franco's military dictatorship
AlmondPOP 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AlmondPOP You cannot run a factory or industry without a chain of command.(bosses)
MrSafetymeeting 3 weeks ago
What does "for the community" mean?
andyissemicool 1 month ago
Unfortunately anecdotal 'evidence' holds no true statistical scientific value.
Psychology experiments show having the opportunity to slack off if others are working and not get caught, people will do so. *That* is something that is documented.
Everyone wants to look good on camera, dudes! Tsc tsc.
debsaid 3 months ago
That video is such a bullshit propanganda. These are questions I would even answere if someone would crash into my train-cabine, holding a cam and a fat microphone in his hands. That's just the first thought about a boss (stereotypes) which automatically makes our brain say: He's a fucker. This video proofs nothing and is in all cases USELESS. There's no reason to discuss about it here.
logobobful 5 months ago
BART!
303Miles 11 months ago
Nice!
MrOfficialmike 1 year ago
I am not a boss of any sort (ok, I am responsable for some people but I do have a boss) and I am quite used to work with teams. If teamwork is made correctly it works much better than individual work. I do have a boss and I am glad I do. And I am glad I am the boss of other people, sometimes people need to be told what to do, so, if the boss is there creating solutions and listening to other people and making decisions accordingly, it works great. I need my boss, and probably so do most of you..
Aqlor 1 year ago
@Aqlor If the boss creates good solutions and does not coerce others into accepting what he proposes, rather, the workers accept what the boss says because it 'makes sense' to them, and there is not a chance they will get fired just for disagreeing with him, then it's ok xD
MrScar7X 1 year ago
@MrScar7X hm you are actually right :)
Aqlor 1 year ago
@Aqlor
"sometimes people need to be told what to do", why? Based on what justifications. Authority and liberty are mutually exclusive.
Plus, participation and democratic control has proven to be more efficient (and increase productivity).
Only those who are afraid of freedom need authority (bosses, politicians, etc.)
GodOfTheInternets 8 months ago
If you don't want to have a boss, feel free to quit your job. Just don't expect me to take care of you.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
If you don't like dictators, feel free to move to another country.
What kind of logic is that?
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia So you insist on getting rid of bosses AND being supported by the survivors?
If we lived in Candyland, where food and consumer goods come free with gommint checks, would you still work? Would you do something creative for teh community? And if that's true, why are the slums of Michigan and Indiana the result of such policies?
What sort of idiotic logic is this? Are you TRYING to be funny?
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
No idea, what you meant with your reference to Michigan and Indiana, please explain.
Would I still work if everything was free? Nope. I wouldn't, I'm an Egoist Communist. In Anarchist Communism all association and relations are voluntary, thus those who do not work will be disassociated from. I will work because it is in my self-interest. Everything is only free on the precondition that you produce what is demanded.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Gary, Indiana. Detroit, Michigan. Flint, Michigan. These cities have had their "bosses" pushed out or gotten ridden of. The workforce remains - and yet, there is mass destitution and poverty. These cities are literally falling apart, despite being flooded with federal money.
And if I insist on having a boss, what then? Must I be re-educated or disposed of? Or will you just shoot my boss? And how will you get the survivors to produce?
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
I can't find anything about those states having no bosses... Not very credible. Source please?
And I do not understand the context of you referring to more productive, more wealthy, etc. Please explain. Are you arguing that if you are rich it must mean you worked the hardest?
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Look at the statistics in these cities regarding the declining presence of US Steel, GM, Chrysler, and subsidiary businesses related to them, during the 1960s to present. Look at the empty factories. Look at thesoaring unemployment figures for these cities.
This isn't exactly rocket science, kid. And I am arguing that the wealthy, as a group, mainly became (and stayed) that way because they were sufficiently talented and worked for their money .
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Dude, I was asking for source that those states functioned WORKERS SELF-MANAGEMENT, i.e. having no bosses. You fail to do so, why? Because all those companies you name still have bosses. We, libertarian socialists, do not call for the replacement of the capitalist boss by a state boss. All bosses need to go. You completely misunderstood the point.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia A city devoid of business, with empty shops and a quarter of teh workforce out of work, is not being "controlled by bosses". It's exactly the opposite that's taking place - workers are lying idle, in poverty, spending their leisure time selling drugs and trying to rob and kill each other.
I didn't "fail" to do anything. Look up Gary, Indiana on the web if you don't believe me. The bosses are gone, with the expected misery and destitution as a predictable result.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Dude.... Having no bosses means not having no business. It means, read carefully now: DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. You think that having no bosses automatically means having no business and no employment? Again, it means WORKERS SELF-MANAGEMENT. Then you bring up Soviet Union, which show you are completely obliviousness of the concept "boss" All you need to do is Google workers self-management.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia No, I'm not "oblivious" to the issues. In the early Bolshevik regime, anarchists were welcome as part of their faction. Bosses were disposed of - and, as expected, production dramatically plummeted. The Bolsheviks were forced, by sheer necessity, to cobble together some sort of replacement for entrepreneurs. They even tried a return to capitalism under the NEP.
The early Soviet state was even worse off than what it eventually ended up being.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
That's funny, because in the Spanish Revolution of 1936 production increased enormously after it was put under workers control. And the FaSinPat (Factory without Bosses) factory also managed to increase productivity. Why? The same reason you say entrepreneurs work harder, they have a stake in the factory. Entrepreneurs do not produce any goods, to compare that to workers (producers) and claiming one works harder than the other is completely subjective.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Production increased enormously? Hmm - then what was all the starvation and deprivation all about then? If they were so brilliantly efficient, why did they so dramatically lose?
Read Hugo Thomas in "The Spanish Civil War". He has lots of fun things to say about anarchists.
Let's put it this way. If you try to do harm to or rob my boss, you'll have to deal with me first. Calling yourself an anarchist won't save you.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Are you serious? Why did they lose? Because the facists had superior fire power. I suppose since communist Vietnam beat capitalist America it means communism is better than capitalism does it?
Your reference to Hugo Thomas seems an appeal to authority (= fallacy).
Bosses are thieves as they live of the labour of by using the threat of violence.
"you'll have to deal with me first"
Aren't you the internet tough guy, go be an infantile jerk somewhere else.
GodOfTheInternets 8 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets The Left fascists had plenty of firepower, provided by Stalin, but they used much of it against each other. Actually a main reason for Franco's victory was because he wasn't much of a fascist, as was the Falange - his elite Moroccan Muslim volunteers, most as black as pitch, defeated the socialist fanatics of the Republic not with better weapons but with superior skill, courage and daring.
I'd suggest you stop being the jerk. Some of those bosses are my friends, you arse.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@GodOfTheInternets I don't see much to distinguish between an anarchist, Marxist, Nazi or any other form of socialist pirate. All of them say one thing and do another. All of them ultimately want to steal something that doesn't belong to them, and take advantage of the people who do all the work in society. All of them turn to violent terrorism when they don't get their way.
The anarchists got what they deserved in the Spanish Civil War. If you try the same where I live, you'll get the same.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel "If you try the same where I live, you'll get the same."
Yikes! A marauding right wing Youtube nutjob. We're all very scared of you, sir.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Yeah, sure. Expect to get a similar reaction whenever you bring your asinine Left fascist bullshit to the table.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Even more frightening.
Using the old "left fascism" trick too! Very clever. What an obnoxious cunt you are. Don't you want to serve the rich in a more polite manner? I think a lot of the Wall St. cunts on the golf course would prefer a more castrated and shrill reactionary tone, to match their mildness and privileged ease, but I guess you need to vent the little cop within you somehow.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@DrCruel "If you try to do harm to or rob my boss, you'll have to deal with me first."
You sound like a true Pinkerton thug. If only all of you apologists for rich degenerates and cynical business-friendly politicians spoke this frankly! "Grrr, don't go near my boss, for I love his strong hand patting me on the ass; he's my master!"
Go pick up the golf balls the Koch brothers trail behind them on the green while you're at it, if you want to be rewarded like a good guard dog for rich scum.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Whatever. I read my history, and I lnow what you aristocratic Left fascist shits did to the entrepreneurs of Russia and Eastern Europe. Your avarice-filled piratical comrades made a waste of Eastern Europe for over half a century.
Go set up your slave states and your gulags somewhere else. You class hatred and envy for the products of other people's hard work doesn't fly with me. No one's buying that Left-wing bullshit anymore.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Actually the libertarian left has been a huge critic of Stalinism and Leninism in the USSR and Eastern Europe, and way before you have. Which is why the best libertarian socialists (be they anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho- or left communists) perished in the Gulags or were killed by the Cheka when obscenely rich American capitalists that you probably worship like Armand Hammer and Fred Koch (father of Koch brothers) were supporting them.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@DrCruel Envy for products? Give me a break.
Actual working-class people do way more hard work than the fucking rich parasites you adore, you stupid cunt. So while you try to turn the hatred of injustice into the hatred of products, you distort the picture to your own fear-driven conservative mentality. A mentality that worships money and the trendy paraphernalia of Paris Hiltons in the first place!
Class hatred? No. Class justice.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Justice my arse. Covetous envy is more like it.
Like I said. No one's buying that anarcho-fascist crap anymore, least of all me. I like my boss, and intend to defend him - and if you don't like that, if that fills you with an unbridled fury, well then tough shit Sherlock.
And if noisy petulant fuming is not enough for you, that's fine too. I'll be more than happy to deal with you and yours when the time comes.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Actually, capitalists love fascists, which is why the richest people pour money into fascist movements (to save their own asses from working-class militancy). Calling an anarchist or libertarian socialist a fascist from someone that loves capitalism is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Capitalism creates the conditions for fascism then lets fascists sprout up all over the place.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@DrCruel Of course you'll be happy to deal with me and mine "when the time comes"-- You'll be a fascist thug, like all the other hired guns and statist cunts, sold out for wealth and power to die like good dogs.
Go suck off your boss, and put some of that "unbridled fury" (nice one) into the suction. Maybe you'll get a little richer!
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Right. I'm a "fascist thug" because I'd fight back, and because I'd defend my friends.
I won't suck off my boss, thanks. That's not what my job entails. But I will do the work I'm being paid for. And you have fuck all to do with it.
Stay out of my business, asshole. Go get your own job.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Stay out of your business?
You're the one on an anti-capitalist video whining and moaning about your boss. So you can fuck off first, pal. Go be a fascist thug elsewhere.
I'm sure there are plenty of commercial hip hop music videos on Youtube with the BLING you'd like to see since you love profit so much. Feast your eyes on something you love if you hate it here! Also, if you have a TV you can just watch jewelry infomercials where they rotate useless wealth and ornaments 24/7.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron It's not "profit" I like. It's equity and fairness. It's avaricious, self-righteous thieves I can't abide.
But you're right about one thing. I've wasted enough time with you. We know where the other stands, and there's nothing else to say. So I'll let you sputter on - you're not likely to amount to anything.
Feel free to make some parting, asinine comment about fascists and whatnot. I'm done with you.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Usually when I poke fun at conservatives they don't know the arguments for their own positions and retreat. This is understandable. Liberals do the same things. I hope one day that liberals and conservatives will get together and admit that they are fundamentally in agreement about the big issues.
But let's be frank. You're not leaving on your own will. I just pointed out that you're out of place here and now, one comment later, you're leaving! I'm glad you agree with me. Bye.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@DrCruel
As for your claims that the USSR abolished bosses, this is completely and utterly rubbish. Before the NEP the USSR implemented War Communism (google it), War Communism meant among others that: All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced and discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot. You can look this up for yourself. Bosses become even more powerful and tougher on workers.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@DrCruel
As for your claims that the USSR abolished bosses, this is completely and utterly rubbish. Before the NEP the USSR implemented War Communism (google it), War Communism meant among others that: All industry was nationalized and strict centralized management was introduced and discipline for workers was strict, and strikers could be shot. You can look this up for yourself. Bosses become even more powerful and tougher on workers.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Secondly, imagine a world with only entrepreneurs (a world without workers), nothing in this world would be made, nothing would get produced. Imagine a world with only workers, this still would produce commodities (and thus wealth). Why is this? Because workers create the wealth. The reason bosses are rich is because they make money of off other people's labour, i.e. theft.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Actually, a "world of only entrepreneurs" describes rather well the early Americans. Business activity was frenetic, and those who engaged in business pursuits were prized and protected. A general, steady increase in national prosperity was the result.
I'd suggest you read some of the works of Ayn Rand. At the least, read up on the Soviet "experiment" after they managed to "dispose of their bosses".
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Like I said in previous message: no bosses means no bosses, it does NOT mean replacing the Capitalist boss with the State boss, like the Soviet Union did. The Soviet Union had bosses.... I... I... really don't get how you can NOT get this. No bosses means no bosses, not replacing one boss with another. No boss = is no capitalist AND no state bureaucrat (i.e. USSR).
Do me a favour and please educate yourself... (Also Ayn Rand sucks donkey balls).
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Anarchism sucks donkey balls - and even a cursory reading of Ayn Rand's works explains why.
If you want to live with no bosses, feel free to go somewhere off in the woods or on a deserted island and live thusly. Leave the rest of us be.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Lastly, you arguing I should just leave in the woods....
You support Ayn Rand right? So you hate our current system (Corporatism), then why don't you move to a country that has laissez-faire capitalism? Hong Kong?
What a silly argument. Anyone who claims another person should move to another country if he disagrees with the system is a closet authoritarian.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia No, I've got some real problems with Ayn Rand's Objectivism. But she did live through a period when shopkeepers, businessmen and other "capitalists" were being disposed of. She has some very valid insights about Leftist ideology based on her experiences.
I already live in a country that has the system I like. It's also a free country. You need not live in parts of the US where industry and business prosper - although this suggestion appears to very much bother you.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Lastly, by entrepreneur I mean someone who owns property and by definition someone who hires labourers to produce goods. Entrepreneurs do not produce anything, so it can by definition not work. (there's a difference between being self-employed, collective self-employment -- HAVING NO BOSS -- and being an entrepreneur, i.e. being a boss over the labour you bought). An entrepreneur buys labour, in a world with only entrepreneurs labour cannot be bought, hence it can never exist.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia And I'm telling you that entrepreneurs work harder than their employees, mainly because they have the most stake in whether a business succeeds or fails. It's YOU who insist on this arbitrary, empirically unjustified distinction.
If I want to work for someone, or want to have someone to work for me, you have no say in it. I honestly don't care how you feel about that.
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Perhaps entrepreneurs work harder, but they don't produce anything...
People who are self-employed generally work harder, an economy without bosses simply means collective self-employment (workers cooperatives/workers self-management). Look up Kevin Carson's Organizational Theory (I believe it is avaible for free)
As for the NEP, you know when it was introduced? After the Kronstadt Rebellion, which was a Left-wing Anarchist rebellion against Bolshevism calling for an end to centralism
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia At the very minimum, they generate potentially profitable opportunities for other workers to sell their labour. And most of them also do the work themselves, when they can. I know of an owner of lemonade trucks that sub-contracts his trucks out to drivers - during the summer he gets up at 6 am, makes the lemonade, fills ice cream orders of drivers from the day before, and then drives one of the trucks himself.
If you got rid of him, his business would not last long.
DrCruel 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrCruel
Perhaps entrepreneurs work harder, but they don't produce anything...
People who are self-employed generally work harder, an economy without bosses simply means collective self-employment (workers cooperatives/workers self-management). Look up Kevin Carson's Organizational Theory (I believe it is avaible for free)
As for the NEP, you know when it was introduced? After the Kronstadt Rebellion, which was a Left-wing Anarchist rebellion against Bolshevism calling for an end to centralism
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@DrCruel
And yes, bosses are redundant.
But I do not understand what you mean by "supported by the survivors", survivors of what?
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
@GlobalAlternateMedia Ah no, they're not. But as they are the hardest working, thus the most productive, and thus the most wealthy, they are prime targets for kleptocrats masquerading as "anarchists".
Survivors of the traditional purges that follow successful Leftist revolutions. Because Leftist ideas are stupid, and because people don't conform to them, teh Leftists ultimately use mass killings to get their way. What remains after these killings are "survivors".
DrCruel 1 year ago
@DrCruel
Authoritarian self-proclaimed Marxists usually end up massacring people. In most Social Anarchist revolutions there was little killing, only in war. The Spanish Civil War lead to a terror of both sides, right- and left-wing terror, so I could easily proclaim that all right-wingers support mass murder, but this would be childish.
GlobalAlternateMedia 1 year ago
FUCK CAPITALISM
Mat397 1 year ago
should have cut it so we didn't have to hear the questions over and over
MetaCraken 1 year ago
guy at :44 is way hawt.
SpaceStationStatic 1 year ago
What about YOUR fucking apologetic nature? Russian revolution? How would you defend that from one of the millions that died because of the Russian revolution?
Fucking useful idiot communist apologetic dumbass. You'd probably pick the Taliban over your own country if left with the choice.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: The Russian Revolution is a genuine proletarian revolution, the urban and rural proletariat had seized the means of production and organized themselves as workers' councils (sovjet in Russian). Anarchist writer Iain McKay also found no fault with the Revolution itself. Not until 1918 did Lenin implement a bureaucracy over them and then the repression (of the workers, mind you) started.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: "You'd probably pick the Taliban." Ahem, I am a male Feminist and the Taliban to me is not the Least of many Evils at all.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Lol at the people who said 'productive' or 'creative' as an answer. Kind of stumped the questioner :P
nempozpag 1 year ago
And no, you DO have to sort out the hacks, you can't read every hacks crap writing. F.A. Hayeks nobel prize and international fame means you sort him way above some unknown hack like Cox, who's writing has not got any impact.
Or do you propose one should read EVERYTHING that has ever been written?
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Cox may be right and Hayek wrong. Popularity is not equal with being correct.
"do you propose one should read EVERYTHING that has ever been written?"
You should if you can, unless you are INTELLECTUALLY LAZY.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi There is litterally millions of words written every day, most of them lies. Also, stop making of terms like intellectually lazy, especially since I showed you he was wrong.
And no, Cox is wrong and Hayek was right, had Cox had anything to say of interest then the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Cato institute or any other organisation had had countered it. If fact he had nothing interesting to say.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Cox is not wrong at all. In fact, you should question your ignorance first, so much that you mistook MANAGEMENT OF INVENTORY (stock control) with rationing; and even confused "hierarchical" with "hieratic."
If you have read Cox thoroughlyly, he had answerd the question how wise inventory/stock control can help suppliers and distributors satisfy consumers' demand in a decentralized, polycentric, libertarian socialist economy.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: "There is litterally millions of words..." In STANDARD English grammar this should have been: "There ARE LITERALLY (one T only, mind you) millions of words..."
Moreover, you again allege that they are lies WITHOUT proving. You cannot call those who disagree with you "liars."
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi I also recommend you read everything written by F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Johan Norberg, John Stossel, John Locke, Aristotle.
Feel free to get back to me once you've done so you lazy bum.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Do you want to delay me so that, while I bother myself to read all those writers, you can go around parroting apologetics of capitalism?
Moreover, a free market, consisting of self-employed people and workers' coops yet EXCLUDING CAPITALIST BOSSES, can still operate smoothly without encountering economic calculation problems since money and price mechanism will still exist.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Fucking grow up you little shit. You call yourself "worker" and you've probably not worked a day in your life. Anarchists are nothing but children that doesn't understand the world.
Also, it was a joke telling you to read all that you fucking retard.
And finally, it most be comforting knowing you could always call someone an "apologetic" when they disagree with you. I am not an apologetic because their is nothing to be apologetic for. You're the one that should be.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Well, well. Now you resort to ad Hominem insults and Argument by Vehemence.
I've been working as a office worker and now I am experiencing unemployment and wish I had the means of production so that I won't have to be a wage-slave to any!
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Well, to wage-slavery ICONOCLASTS like me, those who defend that institution are all apologists, be they capitalists or happy wage-slaves.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
"We have looked at the mechanism of a self-regulating system of stock control, using calculation in kind, which would enable us to keep track of this supply and demand." - Robin Cox
No, a stock control has been tried and has failed. When you start such a program the supplier will have a strong incentive to give less to save and the taker will have a strong incentive to take more to gain, all of this is of course unsustainable.
PS. Don't give me any more hack writers crap.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: "the taker will have a strong incentive to take more to gain." Stock, especially food productions, may deteriorate or become obsolete (software). So it would be unwise to take too much.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: You can read on to next section where Cox was discussing Liebig's Law of the Minimum.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi I've already showed you that he was dead wrong. Don't think I don't know what you are trying to do. You are asking me to read this hack shit to delay me so you can "win" the discussion. If I respond to the hack shit you will simply find new hack shit and ask me to read it too.
"Stock control" is another word for rationing which, regardless of whether you call it communism or not, was what the Soviets DID.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Type "ctype control" on google search and here's your first result:
Stock control and inventory
Introduction
Stock control, otherwise known as inventory control, is used to show how much stock you have at any one time, and how you keep track of it..."
The website discussed NOTHING to do with the Soviet Union.
So actually you erected another strawman. I don't have to bother myself to show you any other article.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperRegisteredUser: Type "stock control" on google search and here's your first result:
Stock control and inventory
Introduction
Stock control, otherwise known as inventory control, is used to show how much stock you have at any one time, and how you keep track of it..."
The website discussed NOTHING to do with the Soviet Union.
So actually you erected another strawman. I don't have to bother myself to show you any other article.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
i don't think you can be anti-capitalist and anarchistic, they are different things
Keva06 1 year ago
@Keva06: To be an Anarchist means to be anti-capitalists because true Anarchists oppose all hierarchical social-economic organization (including capitalistic wage-labour).
DonKhoi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DonKhoi
but Anti-capitalists don't oppose ALL hierarchical social-economic organization. e.g. they just want one class, don't want upper middle and lower classes based on wealth ect...
similar i think but definitely different
Keva06 1 year ago
be honest. imagine all of us with no boss or I prefer "person who guide you to do something". Second, everybody with enough money to live nicely...WTF!!!. The problem resides in MONEY. Erradicate money and the world will be in balance with its own resources
TheNiKiTAsS 1 year ago
great interviews. It highlights the natural urge and preference for self-management and non-directed, socially valued work, inherent to everyone.
Unfortunately, many people see capitalism as inevitable, and fighting against akin to fighting against gravity.
but then again similar views were held on chattel slavery, aristocracy, universal suffrage etc. You just need to show people that there is an alternative, which will fulfill those common and widely held preferences and desires for freedom
slainemacroth 1 year ago
this is proof that anarchism works
Celedan 1 year ago
Here is an article that also show you are liar:
dn.se/ekonomi/amerikanernas-tro-pa-kapitalism-fortsatt-stark-1.1130825
Use google translate on it.
Now we've established that you are both a liar and wrong. We've also established that you are intellectually dishonest since you end a quote mid-sentence, thus creating a straw-man of my position.
I'm adding you to ignore and next time discuss with someone you might think about the errors you made this time
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
People who hate Capitalism don't understand human nature.
Harpenboper 1 year ago
@Harpenboper People who support capitalism don't understand human nature.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
is this on BART?
dankbot420 1 year ago
Meaningless hypotheticals posed to random losers.
alphecca2539 1 year ago
"If you had enough money..."
Yes, but at what cost?
Would you prefer to not have a boss?
Yes, but at what cost?
Without a boss eventually people would stop working. I know it worked a short time in Spain, but to think people would work a life-time in a bread factory if they didn't have too is insanity. So the price of not having a boss is that your children will starve since no bread will get made.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
"Yes, but at what cost?"
Almost half the world, over three billion people, live on less than $2.50 a day. They just want food, shelter, and clothes, not money.
Google Semco and that would explain how life would be like if the boss is treated the same way as the worker.
amazingyou1uber 1 year ago 2
@amazingyou1uber All people start of poor. Countries like Sweden, Norway, South Korea all started poor. To say they just want food shelter and money is an insult. The people I know in poor countries in Africa all want to bring the standard of living up to western standards, all included luxuries
And no, we in the west do no cause the poverty of others. It's not because of us they are poor and nothing we do or don't do will prevent them from being poor
I know who R.Semler is and he's irrelevant
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Poverty is not something in nature. Wealth creates poverty.
juliaisafilmbuff123 1 year ago
@juliaisafilmbuff123 No and you are a complete retard for saying so. Wealth destroys poverty, if someone else get wealthy everyone else benefit from it.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote - "Wealth destroys poverty, if someone else get wealthy everyone else benefit from it. " ---- Notice the lack of any proof.
tom6612 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote -- "Without a boss eventually people would stop working." ---- Obviously you don't know any musicians. Many of them work long and hard for 30, 40 or 50 years for little or no money without a boss. You need to get out more.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 You're such a fucking retard, clearly there's work that is so forfilling that people will do it without being forced to do so, clearly there's work that won't be done unless someone has to do it.
I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser weote --- "I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
Wrong. I don't really care about what job i do to make money. I provide my own "forfillment" . So we see your debate method consists of statements baked up by zero proof. Incorrect assumptions and profanity laced attacks. Thats quite impressive. Your little world needs expanding ---"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 I'd suggest he/she also look at anarchist economic alternatives as an answer to that, – such as participatory economics, and its "balanced job complexes".
slainemacroth 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: I pressume you would not want to be the garbage man in an "anarchist utopia".
Not quite, I will do that if my contributions keep the common streets, voluntarily agreed to be own by everybody, clean for my neighbours, friends, children, etc.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: How the Devil can workers' coops operate WITHOUT bosses?
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Write in proper English or I won't be able to understand you.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: I write in standard English. You should blame your own lack of reading comprehension skills.
A little paraphrase may prove itself useful:
You said that people could not work without bosses, but workers' co-operatives can still be run smoothly without a boss telling workers what to do.
I will be a garbage man if I, by doing so, can keep the common streets clean for my neighbours, children, friends, etc.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi That's because you have never actually done it. There's no way in hell a garbage man would volontary work 8 hours a day for 45 years. Unless you are a 65 year old retired garbage man you can't claim such a thing.
On top of that what you describe lacks a price mechanism, so even if you found people willing to do it (work 45 years as a garbage man) it still would work. cont.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Read about the "economic calculation problem". Even if you could find people willing to do it (you probably could find one or two eager people, but I doubt a whole population) you still wouldn't know what a rational economic decision was.
Just trust me and read something like the wikipedia page on "economic calculation problem".
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Read Robin Cox' "The “Economic Calculation” controversy: unravelling of a myth."
Not to mention that you attack a Strawman. Workers' Co-operatives can still operate WITHOUT BOSSES in a Free Market with money and price mechanism.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi That Robin Cox writing is filled with inaccuracies and it's not the first time I've ran into it. The fact that they predicted that the Soviet experiment would not work is all the proof anyone ever needs.
It's not a straw man to look on how workers coop would work if there only existed workers coop. Workers coop obviously model their coops on hieratic companies.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: "Hieratic is a cursive writing system that was used in the provenance of the pharaohs in Egypt and Nubia that developed alongside the hieroglyphic system" [1] Goedicke 1988:vii–viii.
From Merriam Webster: "1. constituting or belonging to a cursive form of ancient Egyptian writing simpler than the hieroglyphic "
Use "proper English" so that I can understand you.
Roderick Long, a Left Misesian, had argued that firms under s genuine freemarket will be less hierarchical.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: Mises attacked "Socialism" using his favourite Strawman Soviet Union, the economy of which is nowhere Socialistic. The Soviet Workers were still wage-slaves to the Soviet Bureaucracy, which concentrates the means of production in its hand. Proudhon was a Free Marketeer, but he still declared himself a "Socialist" solely on the ground that he opposed wage-labour.
Moreover, you flatly dismissed Cox' article as inaccurate without proving.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
@DonKhoi Oh, the old "Soviet wasn't real communism". Also, are you seriously expecting me to write on youtube why Cox is a fraud? F.A. Hayek received the nobel prize in economics and he supported the argument, Cox is a hack.
I know your strategy, you give me some hack writers crap and you've delayed me until I can find what is wrong with his hack writing, then you give another hack writers crap.
I will play ball this time only. cont.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser: "F.A. Hayek received the nobel prize in economics and he supported the argument, Cox is a hack." This is the Argument from Authority Fallacy. This, minds you, can also be applied to other Nobel Laureates such as Einstein.
DonKhoi 1 year ago
Overproduction is not inherent to capitalism. Capitalism have not caused famine. I am not bitter, I am content with the capitalist world we live in, though some little things need to be fixed. You are bitter and cynical for thinking capitalism have a "work or starve" status quo.
The fact that some jackass go around asking leading questions means nothing.
"Do you want as much money as your neighbour"
"yes"
Now we send you to North Korea.
The fact is that he never mentions the cost.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote - "I am content with the capitalist world we live in
"
--- You are so disconnected from reality --- Global poll: Wide dissatisfaction with capitalism 20 years after fall of Berlin Wall
--- from the article --- "A new BBC World Service global poll suggests that dissatisfaction with free market capitalism is widespread, with an average of only 11% across 27 countries saying that it works well and that greater regulation is not a good idea."
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 If you quote me out of context again I wont respond to you. There's some little things that needs to be changed (back to what it was from the beginning), such as trade agreements (which impairs trade) and bureaucracy (which impairs competition) but over all the system we have now is continually improving the standard of living. Any other system would go the other way which we have proof (Soviet Russia, North Korea etc.).
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@tom6612 Also, if you think those figures mean anything you are way off. If all countries where capitalist then we would have an all time high of dissatisfaction of capitalism, since people wouldn't know anything else. The fact remains that people always flees from new experimental societies and in to capitalist societies. You can't be any more clear than that.
And no, I am not from USA, and no I will not defend the corporatism that USA call capitalism.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser wrote --- " Also, if you think those figures mean anything you are way off." ---
Those figures clearly show you have no idea what you are talking about and that you live in your own little world. Thats why you have to pretend they don't mean anything. You are not being quoted out of context. Your posts are right there for everyone to see. You are just making stupid, false statements. You need to learn how to handle reality.
tom6612 1 year ago
@tom6612 You only quote the first part since the second part explains my statement. Reality is not a democratic process where the side with the most supporters are right, if that was the case the religion with most followers would be correct.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser --- How many times are we gonna go round the Mulberry bush ? YOUR POSTS ARE RIGHT THERE FOR ANYONE TO READ.
It's amazing that you seem to be deluded into thinking that you are being misrepresented. It's like you have a persecution complex.
tom6612 1 year ago
I love this clip. Thanks mr1001nights!
phantomofmyopera 1 year ago
lulz, mr1001nights, you kiddie who has not grown the fuck up, you will have bosses, the collective dictation of the workers. I dont want them telling me what to do
chorizo1337 1 year ago
yossariancomplex: You obviously see the market as a zero-sum game, which it isn't.
Also, anarchism isn't the same as freedom, anarchism many times directly oppose freedom.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
The reason there are some warehouses full of unused stuff is the following:
The owner is waiting for the prices to go up. Like if it took 1 dollar to make a mike and the market price is 2 dollars you wait till you can get moar (since a profit of only 1 dollar is to little to pay for all expenses).
The demand is to low. No one wants to mikes.
It's no allowed to be sold. Many reasons could be behind this, like a toy being harmful, a calculator being to outdated etc.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser read fromm the bottom up
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
I know pure capitalism doesn't take into consideration external effects or external costs, but I really don't see what that has to do with overproduction.
Overproduction are a mistake, nothing that benefits any1, and all societies does it, the different is that capitalism have market mechanisms to prevent it from happening to often or to much.
Your theories are off the wall. No1 benefits from there being warehouses full of unused things.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
Firstly, how dare you imply I am a liar. Secondly, I'm the one talking about allocating resources away from uneeded consumer goods which to food production and i am the one who will cause people to starve? To say that fammine is inherent to communism (which by the way I do not subscribe to) is utterly rediculous.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
For one thing Capitalism has caused famines as well, its cuased genocide just like communism (or governments that have themselves communist but actually hugely pervert the principles of Communism).
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
Overproduction is inherrent in Capitalism more than any other system. The only thing that limits production are the resources need to make it, not the demand for the goods themselves, because demand can be artificially created (by the advertsiing industry). so what links over production 'external effects'?.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser the fact that overproduction consumes resources (without even considering stoping so long as profit is viable) not only is this hazardous to the environment and humanity as a species, but also the resources could be used to improve peoples lives. While the market will try not to limit its over production is does not try to stop it all together. I literally can't beleive you don't see the logic.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser On a personal note, I find you bitter and completely anable of respecting alternative view points. Perhaps its not everyone else who is greed driven, who complies with all the horrible steriotypes you seem to be trying to propogate; I would suggest that you yourself are as you think other people to be. Go back to mummy and daddy's estate
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
Capitalism is not the only option, people can organise themselves without elitists who subscribe unthinkingly to the most irksome human steriotypes in order to justify thier privelege.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
Anarcho-Capitalism lolol. Hope you can't sleep at night now.
robotrollin 1 year ago
Stop twisting my words you cocksucking maggots. I never said you need to be starving to make mikes, I said you need to be rewarded with money to make mikes. If no work paid money no one would sit at manufactoring plants.
Also, anarchist are retarded for thinking people want freedom. There's only a handfull of people in the west that want freedom.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser The current 'production line' mode of production out-dated, needlessly watsfull with delpeteing resources and all in the persuit of money rather than aiming to meet peoples needs.The mike example is perfect: there are warehouses full up with microphones sitting there- this effectively a waste- because there are more mikes that people need; the energy and resources expended producing microphones should have put to work producing grain for the coming food shortages.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@yossariancomplex That comment shows you don't understand the full picture. There are lots of things not in use for various reasons, such as lack of buyers, but as a whole the entire system would collapse if you didn't allow that.
Imagine if you made rules against having a warehouse full of microphones not being put into use, then it would simply translate into a risk to the manufacturer. If you think there is money in not selling your wares then you are wrong.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Under the capitalist system there is money to made in not selling your wares. Overproduction is a central tenet in capitalism. This means that if you produce more you can drive down the price of goods. It does not matter if you've go 10'000 microphones sitting in a warehouse if you've already sold 2 million. That is waste. Waste is central to capitalism.
moasezapzap 1 year ago
@moasezapzap No, your ignorance is really showing now. There isn't a fixed number of microphones in the world and no one owns all the worlds natural resources. There is no point of holding wares, they get old (both in terms of technology and physically old), the price will not go up since holding microphones by no means prevent any1 else from making new ones, unless you personally own all plastic and metal in the entire world
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Ignorance of what? Economics? Capitalist economies have one golden rule: profit. If producing 2 million units instead of 1 million units reduces the price per unit then a capitalist will produce 2 million units. If this means that 50'000 or 100'000 are left unsold it is irrelevant. Because selling 1.9 million units will give you more profit than 1 million units. This is the waste inherent in the capitalist system. It's simple.
moasezapzap 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser It is not a case of 'holding' goods, it is a case of overproduction to reduce the overall price per unit. Overproduction means that once you have saturated demand what's left is overproduction. It is supply and demand. Capitalism does not take into account the externalities of it's actions.
Anarchists do, by the way, through democratic accountability.
moasezapzap 1 year ago
@moasezapzap Your argument would be like Person A burns his own house to increase the value of his second house.
Or Person B would put 7 out of his 10 cars into long storage in order to make the other 3 more valuable.
It might work if they are rare cars and people don't know he has the others in storage (maybe there is only those 10 in the entire world and he says now there is only 3 left) but other than that there is no point to keeping wares unsold and unused.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser This is not an argument or opinion it is established economic fact, set out about 125 years ago.
moasezapzap 1 year ago
@SuperRegistered You miss understand me; I don't want to prop up our atiqauted system which (as I see it) is driving us to destruction as a species, even possibly ruining the prospects of any future life on the planet, and all in persuit of money
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser . I'm proposing we change the system entirely to one where we actually asses our needs before we begin producing things, and not produce a load of products we know we don't really know in order to make something as useless as a profit, when there are many other things we need to be producing: grain. An economy based on harmony, on balance of production with need, not production to inflate profit. It can and must be done if we wish to survive.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@yossariancomplex You can't asses need before hand. This is exactly why communist states have starvation. Without cost on things you can never know what is needed. In capitalism when something becomes more expensive it means there is little of it, and since it is more expensive more will be made.
With planned economy you loose that ability and you have to research every need of everyone, which is impossible.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser I think you are a bit silly. No-one ever starved from being deprived of microphones. Your need to label me as a communist speaks volumes. I beleive in communist principles but I am not a communist. Just because someone who called themselves a communist cause a fimne once does not mean someone who believes in communist principles would do the smae thing.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Capitalism of course has never caused a fimane, never purposefully tsarved an entire race os people like the Biritsh east india compant did. communists also have pruposefully starved people. The irony is I'm talking about redirecting resources from cinsumer goods to food production and II'm the one who's going to cause a famine.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@yossariancomplex So with your proposed change people will starve to death. So I am glad your kind only exist in the fringes of society.
You promise so much, but if you actually got to change society the way you want all of those promises will be broken.
What will you say when 50 million people are dead from starvation? Are you going to say you are sorry?
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser SuperRegisteredUser No one ever starved from need of a microphone! I think it was me who said that we should redicrt resources from comsummer goods to food production and I'm the one is going to cause a famine! You are stupid. Capitalism of course has never cuased famine- never done it on pruprose. Again- so stupid. Very easily rufuted.
yossariancomplex 1 year ago
Everyone misunderstood the question about doing something productive or creative for the community, they thought it meant would you donate some of the money.
Also, none of these people would do enough productive to even produce that microphone he's using which is kind of ironic.
I mean without a boss no one would go to a job making cheap microphones for douche-bags to use in interviews on a train.
Everyone would accept only the most fun and awesome jobs.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
History shows that that is not true. Look at the anarchists in Spain. Bossless, yet were very productive.
The army was run by no one. You could pick up a gun to fight, and when you didn't want to fight anymore you could hand your gun back in. As a result people from the whole world came to Spain to fight the fascists, again without any kind of boss or force. People like freedom and people are not lazy in nature.
pulsatingremedy 1 year ago
You are right, what I was saying is that SOME things aren't done. I can definitely see people joining the army, writing books, making films etc. But no one would go eight hours a day to make cheap microphones for this douche to use. You need to pay them and you need their to be a boss it to work.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser Other than the guy at 3:14 (w/ the white beard), what makes you think everyone else misinterpreted the question about doing something productive or creative for the community? what makes you think what they interpreted was philanthropy? Lol so people in 3rd world who are in desperate need of money would only make decent quality microphones? Obviously it's possible for people to produce good quality microphones even when theyre not in desperate situations. URTHEDOUCHEBRAH
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser
I think it's PRETTY obvious that he found that microphone in the trash. It's easy to find old electronic equipment thats been discarded. I've gotten a lot of TVs that way.
mmysama 1 year ago
@mmysama It still needs to be made dumbass. The only thing that proves is that not everyone could be a lazy ass anarchist.
SuperRegisteredUser 1 year ago
@SuperRegisteredUser
It could be made in China. Purchased by Americans who (rather than working) borrow the money.
mmysama 1 year ago
These people hardly think of the question or their reponse.
The question to ask these people is that if they didn't have a boss, what is the alternative? After evaluating the alternative routes I'm sure they would choose to have a boss.
Minnesnowtakid 1 year ago
@Minnesnowtakid
The alternative to not having a boss is having to fight the other hobos over moldy bread.
mmysama 1 year ago
infact i live of my dads money and don't do shit sep for play video games and eat food
DawnOfTherion 2 years ago