Not all communist parties "sell" their papers. Workers World only charges if you want it delivered to your door (and even then its like a $10 yearly fee), otherwise its passed out for free. On the flip side groups like RCP (you saw him buy a copy of Revolution, which is the RCP paper) rarely give away papers and generaly charge (during my experience I have never been given a free RCP paper without having to buy it or trade it for a copy of WW).
This is just facile. First, capitalism is not just "the voluntary exchange of goods and services." It includes the private ownership of the means of production. Second, socialism is a very broad term for ideologies and economics concerned with the social question, which is generally labor.
Read some Proudhon, Tucker, Warren, and Spooner. All supported the voluntary exchange of goods and services (free market). All were socialists.
I think you'll find that when working class people are told what free market socialism is, most of them tend to agree even if they have hang ups about calling themselves socialists.
I'm a big supporter of Worker Cooperatives, they've done great things in Europe and have declined mostly due to apathy and state benefits, and honestly I think because Europeans are less inclined towards liberty whereas in America working class Americans in particular value our liberty.
Look at these jackasses, touting a form of government that has failed everywhere for all of time. And they talk about revolution? This is regression. I believe their lack of insight is strongly linked to the fact that they have more education then IQ and real world experience.
Mattera I formally invite you to come to me face to face next time your punk ass thinks he can mock something he doesn't understand. You're an idiot and a pig. I truthfully hope someone whacks you in the mouth, preferably Joe Biden.
@blahblahblah86ify Lol....if he ever makes it to whatever neck of the woods your moms basement is in, I'm sure he wouldn't be too scared. Funny to me you level these empty threats of violence through the anonymity of youtube but have nothing of substance to say that would suggest you have any actual information on the cause you claim to support. You freaks crack me up. "I need mommy government to wipe my ass, help me, I suck and I want everyone else to."
Statist is the appropriate term... People my age seem pretty sold on this idea... I actually heard someone say that they wanted the government to choose their job for them while in school...
Rothbard duly noted: the private property owner has ultimate decision making power over a given geographical are just as surely as the State has a ultimate decision making power over its monopoly. Capitalism has NEVER been free market, nor has it existed without State protection. Hodgskin's or Tucker's analysis show that the capitalism they opposed, is the same that exists now. It will never exist in voluntary form because rational ppl would never separate their product from their labor.
This uneducated pinhead is clearly unaware that there exists an entire political philosophy called MARKET socialism.
Markets are never the inherent problem, the problem is that the means of production (productive property and institutions) are controlled by a small group of private owners instead of being directly in the hands of the individuals who use them.
@MsSexySocialist A pineapple tree, pepper plant, scissors, chopping board, broom, razor, plates, pen, keyboard, etc. are all 'productive property', 'capital' consumption goods. If you coercively steal any of those that is Statism.
No they are possessions, personal property, as they have use-value to the individual possessing them.
Productive property/means of production is "stuff that produces other stuff" which requires more than one person to operate
Also, if you wish to actually seem sound and reasonable in a argument, stop calling everything you don't agree with "statism". It's immature and adds nothing to a proper discussion.
@MsSexySocialist A capital consumption good is a good used to produce another good, a pineapple tree, pepper plant, etc. If you promote a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area to coercively steal any of those that is Statism by definition.
I didn't say I was in favor of market socialism, I simply said that it happens to exist; pointing out the fallacy in this simpleton's assertion that socialists are always and inherently opposed to a market-based economy.
To reiterate, markets are not, and never have been the actual problem; the problem with out current state-capitalist system is the monopolization of productive property, information, decision-making ability and the use of coercion in the hands of a small elite: whether in the hands of a small number of corporate CEOs and shareholders, or in politicians at the reigns of state power.
Both are the problem and both of which we'd be better off without.
Yes, because only if you let the half educated, half drunk worker make decisions, we would all be better off. The same workers who couldn't save enough even to save themselves from "oppression", to create and run a business, are going to save enough to make everyone else better off. Yes!.. I see how sensible you are!
If you're a misanthrope and a promoter of class hatred I really can't help you.
It's because of ordinary working people that this economy is able to stay running and why you're able to type those words on your computer put together manually by an Asian worker most likely earning less than a dollar an hour.
So don't be so quick to wage class warfare when it's because of working people that you're able to live your comfy middle-class life and espouse stupid and senseless views.
Because pointing out the obvious is misanthropic? Class hatred? Even socialists agree that workers who remain workers are not able to accumulate enough resources to create their own businesses, while capitalists as former workers have proven their capability to do so.
I am only pointing out the funny contradiction that supposes that people who cannot help themselves out of a perceived "bad" (actually its not bad at all) situation are supposed to be saviors to others?
Workers (the actual creators of the social product) are unable to accumulate enough resources to start their own business precisely because of the systemic, structural, and institutional biases inherent in the privatist market economy.
When any class (in our case an owning class) monopolizes the means of production and decision-making ability, the institutions which result from this set up perpetuate themselves and generate a system of . . .(continued)
Interesting how you have a problem with - owners as a class owning stuff. A bit tautological are we? It also seems you have a clear distinction of what is and is not a means of production. So tell me is a chair a means of production? How about a knife? or a plate?
The physical non-human inputs used in the process of production are the MOP. Or in a simplified sense "stuff that can be used to create other stuff - which requires multiple people to operate".
A chair is a piece of personal property (defined by use and/or occupancy). Not an MOP. You know this, yet you ask a question to which you already know the answer?
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
Why does it matter if it is small or large? Its business, hence it is MOP.
Okay, great! So, in order to keep what is mine... I must NEVER use that chair, that knife or that plate to serve someone else's need in exchange for money. If I do, you classify it as MOP and take it away from me. What a brilliant way to satisfy the needs of human kind!
Ever wonder why socialists make life of their poor victims into ones of utter poverty?
Now you're not even attacking what I actually stand for. You're erecting a straw man then proceeding to tear it down.
I asked about scale because of the question of autogestion (self-management) and its necessity as a mechanism for ensuring economic justice and democracy - and how this was especially important within economies of scale due to the coercive institution of wage-labor.
And you're just being hysterical over the MOP issue.
Tell me where I am wrong when I say, that you have no issues with me using a chair or a knife or a plate for my use, but if I use the same equipment to serve food to whoever would buy it, you would deny my ownership of those objects. That I believe is simply repeating what your position.
In such a world, the Sensible thing for resourceful me, is to keep using my possessions for my benefit only. If someone needs food - she can go hungry, even if she is willing to buy it from me.
You're presupposing that I advocate a for-profit market economy. I do not.
What I would propose as a replacement for both state-capitalist and state-communist economies and political systems is a system involving:
1. The dissolution of the centralized state and its replacement with a decentralized free confederation run according to deliberative participatory democracy.
2. Political and economic coordination via a system of nested democratic assemblies (DAs for short)
Nope.. now you ARE strawmanning me. I do not assume that you are advocating for-profit. I am painfully aware that you are anti-profit economy.
You seem to be resorting to diversions in an effort to not concede that in your system, a resourceful person better not trade with others on the basis of items/equipment he intends to keep in his own possession. Once he does, those items are MOP, and cannot be privately owned and he is a dirty capitalist if he asserts ownership of them.
I truly thought you were above loaded language and such over-emotional terminology.
In any case, how does one ACQUIRE property in the first place? It has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is out of the social product which every actor in the economy contributes to.
There is only so much of that social product to go around and it makes zero sense for certain individuals to monopolize the MOP - which should be usable by all.
It has to come out of savings of individual consumer, i.e. Me! If I want to sell you, say a egg-salad tomorrow(MOP = plate, table, chair, knife, fork), I have to reduce my current consumption, deny myself that extra weekend beer so I have enough saved up to trade for the MOP, with MOP makers or give up use of potential MOP myself (in case of my household table), in order to produce that egg-salad. I did not rob anyone by not drinking that beer did I?
I did say that in the scenario I was proposing that MOP could be leased on a long-term basis to anyone wishing to enter the economy as an active participant as opposed to a wage-worker.
You don't have to pay anything for it, you just have to keep to the terms of the contract you acquired it through.
And indecently, your savings also come out of the social product - everything that results from the productive process does.
Problem is, the wages of some are grossly inequitable.
Surely, you see how obtuse your arguments are getting. Why don't you accept the fact that in your system, a resourceful person better not utilize whatever resources he has - just sit tight and hold on to that chair and knife - keep them as possessions? If he chooses to use them as MOP for any enterprise, then he loses ownership of those things. Instead, he should "lease" such MOP from some source that has enough blast furnaces for everyone who wants one...?!
Again, you're assuming that the property people own just comes out of nowhere.
Everything economic actors come to possess has to come out of the gross social product that results from the productive process. Whatever "resources a person has" always come from the efforts of other people - unless you're able to be completely self-sufficient.
Ig you're a resourceful person then you should be able to make the best of yourself with whatever means are available to you . . . (cont)
No, I am not assuming that. IF you read my posts and you will see that I never assume that.
You are trying to define everything produced as social product, if this is so, then no one can have private possessions at all. Ironically, this does logically and inevitably lead to the "taking away of my cutlery". Just putting "social" in front of "product" does not make all "products" social, although that would be hard for you to see.
As you'd see if you read MY previous posts, I fully support and vehemently defend the right to personal property ownership - defined by personal use and occupancy (a house, a car, a DVD collection, and yes, cutlery of course).
And everything produced IS a social product. That's what "social product" means; the net produce of society as a whole.
The question after it's been produced is how to divide it up and what should be allocated where
You are making futile attempts at obfuscation and avoiding my question. But, I will return to my original question - If I own personal property of a table, a chair, a plate and a knife, am I free to use them as I see fit? Say to generate a product ..say a bread, and sell it for profit? Do I still own those pieces of personal property against the claims of anyone else?
It is a YES or NO question!
What if I allow Bob to borrow those things in exchange of a usage fee? Y/N
Let me just make this clear before I say this, I am NOT avoiding you question so please just bear with me for a moment.
I never explained it thus far but it is an important point and one that completely alters the context of your question. What I am conceptualizing in this future libertarian socialist integrated system actually involves a post-money economy.
There is no actual currency in the present sense of the term. Instead, what is proposed is replacing it with . . . (cont)
Oh, so instead of answering a simple yes or no question first - and then explaining how your society is designed, you are going to go on and on about how your society is designed? I find this mildly amusing now that you feel compelled to go thru. My question will still remain the same, even after your ten thousand rule pontification and clarifications. It is very simple YES or NO question and is not going to change regardless of what you are telling me.. just so you know.
(cont) . . . index of desirability + onerousness. To measure labor in terms of labor hours is ridiculous as some occupations are more difficult or dangerous than others - and they should naturally pay more.
2. "Ruling party"? Really? Are you serious?
Because if you actually are you didn't even read several of my messages where I clearly pointed out I want the state totally ABOLISHED in the long-term. Then again this may just be an immature insult with no actual content (cont)
Well, the honest answer for the Duke-capitalist conversation is .. NO. No one is going to take away his castle or his serfs. If his serfs however choose to leave and take up employment elsewhere, the Duke can do nothing unless he wants to militarily harm them, which would be considered a crime in capitalist system. See.. answered in one post.
The question I asked is only loaded because you cannot honestly say "Yes" because that would make you look terrible.
And you cannot say "No" because that is fundamentally denying the basic premise of your ideology. i.e. People can own MOP and just because they used something as MOP does not negate their ownership in the objects under consideration.
So next time have the intellectual honesty and admit that - once something is used as MOP - the owner looses exclusive ownership of the knife, chair and table etc. etc. No need to go in circles.. whats the point? You will have to admit it at some time
(cont) . . . same way that we no longer accept that a nation-state should be undemocratic as they need to be accountable to the people they serve.
TO TRY TO NOW ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:
As I said before, the context changed the nature of the question (ie: it isn't possible to make a monetary profit in an economy without money) so it wasn't as simple as Y/N.
But for the sake of simplicity, I suppose I would say: "NO".
And that doesn't go against my beliefs. . . (cont)
(cont) . . . what it goes against is what you seem to THINK my beliefs are.
Away from the economic dimension, let me now ask a few questions re: politics.
1. In YOUR ideal polity/economy, what should the role of government be?
2. If "none" (which is my position), do you then support the dissolution of the state?
3. How is it you feel privatist ownership and control of the MOP isn't just monopolization and oligopoly given the top-down hierarchical structure of such institutions?
2. No reason to support dissolution of the state, it is dissolving itself
3. Just like Private ownership of chairs is not monopoly - so is ownership of a blast furnace, not a monopoly. The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!). Is it a monopoly - sure, and so is control over your own body, but it is restricted to THAT privately owned object.
(cont) . . . and a privatist advocate of free markets, but do you specifically desire in the long term a stateless society (anarcho-capitalism) or a minimal state for dealing with external issues/protecting people from fraud and coercion (minarchist capitalism)?
"Private ownership of chairs is not monopoly"
That's because ownership of chairs and the like can be defined by use and occupancy. Personal possession does not involve absentee ownership or hoarding of the . . . (cont)
(cont) . . . MOP for private gain at social expense.
"The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!)"
Yes there is - as I explained already. MOP are "stuff that can create other stuff" which generally requires more than one person to operate; factories and natural ecology for example.
"Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too?"
I'm guessing here that you're talking about the . . . (cont)
(cont) . . . MOP for private gain at social expense.
"The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!)"
Yes there is - as I explained already. MOP are "stuff that can create other stuff" which generally requires more than one person to operate; factories and natural ecology for example.
"Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too?"
I'm guessing here that you're talking about the . . . (cont)
Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too? After all, every nutrition you fed it was a "social product" too! Understand that this means any one can rape you as he/she deems desirable.
I have no problem with hierarchy, top-down or bottom up. There are different skills people have that are suited for different tasks. Not everyone is capable of designing a product, nor is everyone capable of lugging 200 lbs. Why should society be flattened? Just to suit your aesthetic preference?
(cont) . . . right-libertarian/privatist concept of "self-ownership".
There's no such thing. It's a silly possessive individualist which seeks to justify selfish and anti-social actions by declaring that you "own yourself" and everything you come to possess via mixing labor or capital then becomes an extension of the self - which then goes on to the equally foolish "homesteading" principle.
It's a mode of thought best suited to . . . (cont)
Hahaha.... right. You know I am the first one to call myself Omni-master. It will mean master of the universe by the time you read it. And because I call myself that, I must really be master of the universe.
So your DENYING that we (the anti-state socialists) actually coined the term you now use to describe yourself?
If so congratulations on your willingness to keep up such an extraordinary bluff for so long despite one and half centuries of history being against you.
No. I have no reason to deny it. It would be arguing with a strawman. Because coining a term does not mean you own it or you have defined it as such. If I call a buffalo, a tiger (while talking of its wonderful stripes and paws and claws AND horns and hoofs), doesn't make the buffalo into a tiger, it only helps identify the person using the term as not knowing what he is talking about. Same thing applies to people from the past and same thing applies to future.
(cont) . . . right-libertarian/privatist concept of "self-ownership".
There's no such thing. It's a silly possessive individualist which seeks to justify selfish and anti-social actions by declaring that you "own yourself" and everything you come to possess via mixing labor or capital then becomes an extension of the self - which then goes on to the equally foolish "homesteading" principle.
It's a mode of thought best suited to . . . (cont)
"I have no problem with hierarchy, top-down or bottom up."
This just about says it all really. You do realize that is tantamount to saying you support societal domination?
The whole goal of any philosophy seeking possitive social change should be societal liberation from systems of control and subordination, you're saying you wish to perpetuate all of this?
"Having no problem with hierarchy" is "support societal domination"?
Why should I decide what and how other people MUST NOT organize themselves? If they want hierarchies.. let them have it. If they want flattened society .. let them have it.
Why must I have a problem with hierarchy? And how does that mean I am supporting domination of any kind?
Here is an analogy of your claim - if you aren't for exterminating Jews, then you are supporting extermination of Muslims.
@utubehayter "Here is an analogy of your claim - if you aren't for exterminating Jews, then you are supporting extermination of Muslims."
That's a false dichotomy. Which is not what I was making.
Societal hierarchy naturally leads to societal domination and a master-servant relationship. Although in the context we're talking about it might be more apt to call this "kyriarchy" (look up the term if you don't know of it).
"Voluntary hierarchy" would be oxymoronic in a liberated society.
Say you know how to perform a dance, I and 2 of my friends want to learn from you. We come to you and request that you teach us (for compensation that you agree with). Now you are the teacher, we are the students.
Does that mean you are dominating me and my 2 friends? Is it "inevitable" that you will restrict
1. where we can live
2. who can we talk to
3. what objects and under what conditions we are allowed to own (sound familiar)?
Ah.. so which other relationships may sound mutualistic but are really hierarchial?
Let me guess - Employee-employer?
After all, what I and my 2 friends asked you to do is provide a service for us - in return we agreed to compensate you. We, were the employers. You were the employee.
Oh, and money is a medium of exchange. If you have LVs as means of exchange, then LVs ARE your money. The only way you can have a "post-money" economy is .... you stop paying people or for stuff (i.e. no trade, just grab stuff and it is yours). I would say that is an anti-economy... but what do I know
How do you know if employer-employee relationship is institutionalized and teacher-student is not?
Well then it's a good thing that a system of LVs are NOT a medium of exchange - they cannot circulate and are non-transferable between people. When you pay $10 for something, it isn't "exchanged", it ceases to exist.
Look, I feel at this point that the question you asked has become muddled over the issue of economies of scale. Looking back over the comments I noticed that I asked about what kind of restaurant you had in mind. This was intended to be a separate question but I guess I didn't make that clear and it wound up getting mixed up in the issue.
I was attempting to make the point that in the future, economies of scale must by necessity be democratically administered in the . . . (cont)
Look, I feel at this point that the question you asked has become muddled over the issue of economies of scale. Looking back over the comments I noticed that I asked about what kind of restaurant you had in mind. This was intended to be a separate question but I guess I didn't make that clear and it wound up getting mixed up in the issue.
I was attempting to make the point that in the future, economies of scale must by necessity be democratically administered in the . . . (cont)
So, I had a large restaurant (large as defined by you) then I wont own the MOP that I have. If I am small - then rules of justice and ownership are flipped on their heads and magically I am now allowed to keep my MOP.
In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do. God forbid, that you work hard, open early, stay open late, ensure good quality, provide prompt service and your restaurant grows "large"! Then you loose ownership of what you got and earned.
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
I think you imagine common ownership to be able to lease out anything. Its not possible unless you have a state in any of its variants. Just answer this - who will sign off on such a lease as the "lessor"? In common parlance, it is the owner of the resource being leased and by owner, it means private ownership.
No, there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!
"Just answer this - who will sign off on such a lease as the "lessor"?"
I already explained all this to you in a previous comment - further evidence to my belief that you didn't actually read any of them.
To reiterate; there is no state. It is replaced by a polity that consists of a decentralized confederation of autonomous communities administered through deliberative participatory democracy through a network of nested "Democratic Assemblies" or DAs.
Each person signs up for one of these DAs and through them is able to democratically affect local policy.
It is these DAs that lease out MOP (which is held in common) to anyone wishing to engage in production.
"there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!"
You're talking far-future here. That wouldn't be possible unless we lived in a post-scarcity society.
Each person signs up for one of these DAs and through them is able to democratically affect local policy.
It is these DAs that lease out MOP (which is held in common) to anyone wishing to engage in production.
"there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!"
You're talking far-future here. That wouldn't be possible unless we lived in a post-scarcity society.
"It is replaced by a polity that consists of a decentralized confederation of autonomous communities administered through deliberative participatory democracy through a network of nested "Democratic Assemblies" or DAs."
In other words... replace A democratically STATE with MANY STATES.
I don't want to ridicule you, on obvious things at least. So please stop provoking me.
Why is the decisions of a 5 plumber+10 carpenter+2 baker supposed to be good for baking bread?
"In other words... replace A democratically STATE with MANY STATES."
A state is by definition a "monopoly on the use of coercion". This cannot exist is a situation where each autonomous individual has democratic decision-making input in proportion to the degree they are affected - ie: universal participatory democracy.
"I don't want to ridicule you, on obvious things at least. So please stop provoking me."
I'm just giving my opinion. I can't see how I'm provoking" you by doing so.
Right, because calling an entity that can decide to give EVERY single MOP is really about autonomy. It is the same thing if it gives it to Bob.. or to me.
Since you don't understand what I am aiming at - Do you realize that democratic decision making is simple mob majority rule? Its obviously NOT autonomous for the loosing minority.
Do you realize that quitting minority of socialist "autonomous" societies are considered by their legal system as thieves of public domain services?
Mob rule is not democracy in the sense I am using the term.
In true democracy (participatory democracy) the majority must never be able to impose their will upon a minority - no matter how small. It requires deliberation and decision making by CONSENSUS not majority vote.
As I said; "Decision-making in proportion to the degree one is affected".
And NO ONE (person or institution) has the right to override the will of the individual.
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
So the only possible way for a business to actually "grow" would be to bring in new partners to help run it. Post-money economy remember? Monetary profit isn't possible; and neither is the imagined scenario you mocked up where your surplus gain are somehow "seized".
"No reason to support dissolution of the state, it is dissolving itself"
With respect, this isn't answering the question. You claim to be a right-libertarian . . . (cont)
Oh, so instead of answering a simple yes or no question first - and then explaining how your society is designed, you are going to go on and on about how your society is designed? I find this mildly amusing now that you feel compelled to go thru. My question will still remain the same, even after your ten thousand rule pontification and clarifications. It is very simple YES or NO question and is not going to change regardless of what you are telling me.. just so you know.
(cont) . . . a dual-tier system of free access (for basic needs) and an electronic "Labor Voucher" (LV) form of remuneration to pay for any non-basic commercial goods and services.
Say I want to buy the complete "Avatar: The Last Airbender" on blu-ray, I have $1000 and it costs say $60. When I scan it at a self-service till and slip my "LV card" into it and select "purchase", my $60 is deducted from my total, but doesn't go into the till. I simply ceases to exist . . . (cont)
Labor voucher? Yikes! Just to save you a lot of trouble.. labor theory of value is not held as valid even by Marxists.. let alone anyone else. Which means you cannot exchange goods for labor hours.. which means as a medium of exchange labor vouchers are completely useless. But you are right about loyalty points.. loyalty to the ruling party that is.
1. On the LTV, I do not believe in it and do not believe it works in practice. I believe in Robin Hahnel's "Theory of economic justice" which doesn't apply to the determination of product or service value, but establishes a flexible criterion for what are appropriate levels of remuneration for one's labor.
That being: *reward commensurate with the level of personal sacrifice* Personal sacrifice being macroeconomically measurable by a proposed . . . (cont)
Do you know by now, what you are saying? and more importantly why you are dancing around the question? I am thoroughly amused.. you can see why, I hope. Please consider that you have stumbled upon the idea that your ideology is anti-human in its actual working, no amount of escape hatch detail is going to change that fact. It has nothing to do with the size of my operation.. It only has to do with the principle of and incentives created by denying private ownership in MOP.
(cont) So essentially it's a system more akin to loyalty points or frequent flier miles than traditional money
Thus, the thing is, what you ask about in your question wouldn't actually be possible as there is no medium of exchange
In fact, the only reason I feel we couldn't transition to a complete free access economy is because of the issue of scarcity and the lack of sufficient cybernation and automation of rote labor
So the LVs are basically a way of rationing scarce resources
(cont) State-capitalism gets this completely backwards due to its structurally unjust and inequitable system of remuneration and the monopolization of MOP by a small few private elites.
State-capitalism = "To each according to property and bargaining power".
State-Communism = "To each according to output (ie: genetic lottery >> more reward)
However, a truly just system of reward would be this:
Economic justice = "To each according to personal sacrifice tempered by personal need"
(cont) . . . but what you seem to be overlooking is that the way we act in the economy affects not just us but everyone and everything around us.
It is therefore important to look at economic issues in terms of freedom of choice - taking into account both the individual and the social dimensions.
The ideal scenario is to ensure that everyone has the same level of freedom of choice in the economy as everyone else and preventing situations where one actor is able to . . . (cont)
(cont) . . . limit the freedom of choice for another.
So you see, when one is able to own and control in such a way that reduces another's ability to choose, (ie: monopolization) the freedom of choice and decision-making ability of one increases while society's is reduced.
Look, if you want to use your own possessions to inhance your business there's no problem. The problem comes in when someone can own something like a whole factory or building and control everything inside it.
3. Common (indivisible) ownership of the MOP. As opposed to state, private, corporate or collective ownership.
4. MOP could then be leased out on long-term contract to any individual or group who wishes to engage in production/start a business/become self-employed.
5. Leasing done via negotiated contractual agreement between the DAs/confederation and the party wishing to obtain MOP for use in production.
6. The larger the scale of the MOP, the more individuals required to lease it out.
(eg: a small local store = one person. A large auto factory = about a hundred or more)
7. Large and small scale cooperatives would make the most sense as the most common form of business, but any kind could exist AS LONG AS no business uses wage-labor (working for others without decision-making input)
8. If terms of a negotiated contract are broken, MOP could be repossessed
Why does it matter if it is small or large? Its business, hence it is MOP.
Okay, great! So, in order to keep what is mine... I must NEVER use that chair, that knife or that plate to serve someone else's need in exchange for money. If I do, you classify it as MOP and take it away from me. What a brilliant way to satisfy the needs of human kind!
Ever wonder why socialists make life of their poor victims into ones of utter poverty?
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
The physical non-human inputs used in the process of production are the MOP. Or in a simplified sense "stuff that can be used to create other stuff - which requires multiple people to operate".
A chair is a piece of personal property (defined by use and/or occupancy). Not an MOP. You know this, yet you ask a question to which you already know the answer?
@utubehayter (2) (cont) "Interesting how you have a problem with - owners as a class owning stuff." Private OWNERS of the MOP. Not owners of property. Again, you know this, why ask the question? There are three classes in a state-capitalist economy/polity: -Owners (5%) -Coordinators (15%) -Producers (80%) So yes, I do realize there are a great many members of society who are not workers; about 5%. This is the part which controls the other 95% And thats the problem; too much power, too few hands
Surely you have heard of John D. Rockefeller? The fabric of "systemic, structural and institutional biases" opened up and thru a rift of space-time continuum ...blah! blah! blah!... and so JDR got rich?
When you say "monopolize", do you mean "Owners exercise rights of ownership"? Its tautological but I can see how you seem to believe that "me owning A hammer" means "no one else can own hammers".
"When you say "monopolize", do you mean "Owners exercise rights of ownership"?"
As deliberately loaded as that question is, I'll answer it. When I said "monopolize" I meant it entirely in relation to the MOP. The MOP should - if we lived in a truly free an equitable society - be freely available for the use of all. Common ownership and usufruct could offer that an enable everyone to become an independent economic actor and not have to fulfill their ambitions . . . (cont)
Actually they are just trivial questions even a child can answer, if they don't have a totalitarian outlook on life and the world.
The only thing that common ownership and usufruct can offer is stagnation for a short while, if you are lucky, and eventually and inevitably poverty, death, violence and starvation. Wherever it has been tried through out history, it has ALWAYS delivered these conditions. You want to try it.. AGAIN?.. go ahead. Not going to stop you.
Spain - To be fair, it was under war conditions and it did not have the time to settle. Ironically, they were defeated because they could not resolve their disputes over control of things, (EVEN with communists!) which is my objection to your system.
Israeli Kibbutz- They were funded by Israeli government, IDF to be specific, because they thought this is what would help "cultivate" patriotism and national integrity (read to make soldiers willing to fight for the nation state).
"they could not resolve their disputes over control of things, (EVEN with communists!)"
Actually the Communists were the ones who ruined the entire thing. It wasn't a case of Left vs. left, it was a case of libertarian vs. authoritarian. Aside from both being consider "left" or "socialist" they were completely different systems.
Re: Israeli Kibbutzism:
They are now but their founding predates the state of Israel. Admittedly though this is not a good thing and shouldn't be the case.
Right.. because communists too do not understand and have the same problem.
People have been living in communes going a while back - and they ended up being poor. Some even accept poverty as "God's wish". This btw, has been an essential condition for continuous existence of a common-property society.
The only reason Kibbutz is even in consideration for not being a total failure is its relative persistence.. not success. And state funding is the secret behind its persistence!
Communists and your kind simply do not understand that their system is totalitarian. Because you have no concept of just ownership - you simply cannot decide whether a particular good belongs to/or should be allocated to X or Y. Add in the fact that most of these communities suffer unbalanced supply of goods due to inherent irrational production, it is simply inevitable. "You manage yours, I will mine" is not even an option due to "indivisible" and common property.
How many alternative economic systems have you even studied? because all you seem to be doing is mouthing off a bunch of non-specific objections to some floating abstraction you see as "my system".
There are numerous different proposed systems of economic coordination and allocation in a non-statist cooperative economy and ZERO of them have any of the problems you just tossed out - even in theory.
How many alternative economic systems have you even studied? because all you seem to be doing is mouthing off a bunch of non-specific objections to some floating abstraction you see as "my system".
There are numerous different proposed systems of economic coordination and allocation in a non-statist cooperative economy and ZERO of them have any of the problems you just tossed out - even in theory.
I have considered the fascist model, the God-based communism, the science(environmental or robots)-based communism, Market socialism (also called "artificial market"), Nationalism, Autarky, Marxist Socialism, democratic socialism as practiced in 3 different nations and "mixed" economy (aka some socialism, some market).
As to economic coordination, sure show me a system that is coordinated enough to thrive. Anything with Democracy in it, is overt rejection of reason and thrift.
First mistake. (1) Market socialism operates with the continued existence of the state. It is not an example of libertarian socialism. The same system without a state is called "Mutualism", and (2) the artificial market presupposes a stateless economy involving participatory democracy and self-management.
Your mistake here confirms my original feeling that you haven't really studied any of the systems you mentioned.
How many times do I have to tell you that your system as YOU proposed it, involves many totalitarian states? I don't know if you seem to believe that simply dividing a state to even more totalitarian and into smaller groups makes it not exist at all. Many states =/= Stateless!
Your so-called "participatory democracy and self-management" is the state. The term democracy itself is a dead giveaway.
You seem more interested in dismissing criticisms than examining them.
Let me approach this another way, what about "participatory democracy and self-management" is so benign to you? I would give you a small capital allocation problem here, but the 500 char limit is far too short for it. Once you have any democracy, best demagogue wins!
"I will give everyone free cars, toothbrushes, houses" etc. etc. etc. - gains the most votes, regardless of whether the proposed "solution" is feasible or will do everything a state does.
More evidence that you weren't actually listening to what I was saying.
First, you assumed by "democracy" I meant "mob rule" or referendum democracy (eg: Prop 8), then when I explained to you what I actually did mean, you come back having now ignored everything I clarified and confused it with representative democracy.
The whole process of "participatory democracy" (if you bothered to look up a definition) is hard-wired so that "demagoguery" cannot exist
You are claiming that participatory democracy is not vulnerable to demogoguery.. I need some evidence for this. I think you are simply ignoring reality of human nature, that
1. we vary in our wants, needs and desires
2. that we make mistakes
3. if we suffer consequences for the wrong decisions of others, we resent them.
4. we rationalize decisions we take and find scapegoats. E.g. if only THEY worked harder..etc. etc.
5. conflict of interests must be resolved to avoid violence.
1. Say one individual decides to seperate from a DA, does he get a share of the MOP or equivalent valued goods?
2. Is he allowed to seperate at all, if he has been educated, fed, raised etc. (i.e. used PDS) without being accused of theft? What are the chances that such accusations would not arise in such society if that person happens to become wealthy once he leaves?
3. Once outside, if he trades and gathers extra MOP - will his right to property in MOP be recognized by the DA?
It's just that at this point this comments section seems to have become way too crowded and I'd need to have enough space to adequately respond to all 3 of those questions. As well as those 5 points in your message before that.
@utubehayter State-Socialism (Merriam-Webster): 2b. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
'mssexysocialist' is a State-Socialist: "The means of production (productive property) [...] would be under common ownership"
Proudhon/Bakunin/Kropotkin/Rocker/Bookchin/Guérin/Chomsky/Albert/McKay are all State-Socialists (I have quotes of each calling for State-Socialism, just PM me if you want them).
She is too shallow to understand coercive State ownership of capital goods involves a coercive institution initiated over a geographical area: a State (by definition!). She will howl 'common ownership' as she initates Stalinist State-Socialism, as the Stalinists did themselves.
State-Socialist Lenin:
"common property. [...] the common ownership of the means of production,"
State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist':
"The means of production (productive property) [...] would be under common ownership"
@qwertypoiu4321 When they get the chance to (once again) initiate Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist State-Socialism and society rejects this dungeon State, State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist' will be there howling 'Common ownership! Common ownership!', just as the Bolsheviks did.
When the State comes and steals ('expropriates') all of your voluntary property, State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist' will be there howling 'Common ownership! Common ownership!', just as the Bolsheviks did.
And what pray tell, do you think "common ownership" is supposed to mean?
It seems once again that you're incapable of forming a rational and coherent case against libertarian socialism, so you continue to ramble incoherently against something which libertarian socialism is actually innately opposed to.
What I fail to understand about you even after having heard all your silly opinions, is why you continue to pontificate so much about subjects of which you are so clearly ignorant
@MsSexySocialist Lenin was clear: "the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. [...] the common ownership of the means of production,"
And I explained that by Lenin's own definition of what you he considered "socialism" in State and Revolution, (that being common ownership) the USSR never achieved it. Primarily because it could never achieve it as Leninist (and also Marxist) theory is inherently flawed in believing that centralized state control could lead over time to democratic control and universal participation.
Creating criminal code-terms for State ownership of Capital Goods is a State-Socialist full-time contrived job:
Common, Us All, Community, Social Property, Collective Product, Common Property, Society, Exension Owned by State, Concentrated in the Hands of a Vast Association of the Whole Nation, Create a New Social Order, Collective Ownership, Common Property of Society, Convert Into Common Property, Common Ownership, Social Ownership Established, Owned by the Whole People, take over, etc.
I realize at this point that what you seem to be consistently guilty of has a name: jonahism (after Jonah Goldberg). Assuming out of either ignorance or laziness that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow coming from the same point of view.
AND you could still never conjure up solutions to your own infantile ideals of a pseudo-anarchist capitalist utopia - Problems I + II which I explained to you.
You mean coercive State ownership but deceivingly cover this fact up with reactionary code-terms, i.e. criminal code-terms. If someone said it is not slavery if they coercively 'borrow' you in their basement, 'borrow' would be a criminal code-term for coercive enslavement.
In regard to how to achieve X society and if it is possible, any system different in any way to the current will have to use the tactics I outlined, and 9 core non-State example systems have existed in the last 1500 years.
@qwertypoiu4321 You can not explain how to get to your State-Socialist system and historical examples of such a system because the only answer is to expand State power and point to Dungeon Socialst States from the past, since those are the only examples of your State-Socialist system you have.
I explained clearly to you the concepts of dual power and gradualism. The fault is yours for either ignoring this or being too lazy to bother looking up what the concepts mean.
Additionally, I also fail to understand how on earth you expect to be taken seriously by ANYONE friend or foe when you use ridiculously over-emotional and hyperbolic language such as "criminal", "slavery", "dungeon statism" ect.
Just how many members have you got in your mob for establishing voluntaryism?
@MsSexySocialist There is the Voluntary Class vs. the Coercive, Criminal Class. All of this Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, Bolshevik, State-Socialist criminalism State-Socialist Rachel supports will never be accepted.
No one will ever accept mini area's of criminal mob expropriation of capital goods as you promote, or gradual State-Socialism; it will never happen.
Never mind you have *ZERO* physical examples of your criminal State-Socialism ever being morally desirable without being a coercive, criminal system at its core.
'Slavery' and 'Dungeon Socialism' are terms Chomsky uses.
The Voluntary Class will do every tactic in their power to end the coercive State, just like ending Criminal Class chattel enslavement or the murder of animals, and criminal Statists like yourself will go nowhere, only spending all of your time being criminal bodyguards for the criminal State until your Criminal Class eventually loses to the Voluntary Class.
Wow. In less than 1200 characters you managed to use the word "criminal" no less than 11 times.
Ever think of expanding your vocabulary?
In any case, this "voluntary class" doesn't exist and never will, as every one of the positions you hold run contrary to the interests of the global working population.
The kind of absurd, absolutist, egotistical, possessive individualism you advocate as the basis for a future society appeals to no-one but ignorant teenagers.
Additionally, I have no reason to believe you even have it within you to actually do anything in the way of trying to achieve this fantasy society of yours
Judging by both the content and style of your writing, I'm guessing you're simply some spoilt rich kid who's read a little Murray Rothbard and now thinks he's got the whole world figured out.
Well sorry, but you don't - especially human beings.
The fact you display traits of a religious fanatic and sociopath doesn't help
Look, you seem like an intelligent guy overall, and this is precisely why it strikes me as so odd that you don't bother to look up or clarify anything I've said. This combined with you're repeated straw man attacks and silly insults instead of actual content.
I have not thus far (if I have please correct me) even once mischaracterized any position you hold or tried to do so. Why do you not extend the same courtesy?
"I can see how you seem to believe that "me owning A hammer" means "no one else can own hammers"."
(Sigh) Again with the putting words in my mouth. The civil thing to do here would be to ask about the ownership of hammers, not tell me what I supposedly believe.
In any case, own all the hammers you want to. But if you wanted to own a hammer-making factory and control everything within it, I would say no.
(Continued) . . . control and subordination which in turn breeds the systemic coercion of the "grow or die" imperative which private enterprise markets operate on.
In short, it can be pretty hard to work yourself out of a bad system when the system itself is actively and structurally working against you.
And who exactly said working people were meant to be "saviors" to others?
"Aren't socialists against the voluntary exchange of goods and services?"
Um...no. Voluntarism isn't a capitalist idea. It's voluntarism. A free society is based on voluntary association and socialism doesn't have to be state owned means of production. It could be cooperative means of production. And if you don't like that cooperative you could asscoiate with another one. That's voluntarism.
People really need to learn what socialism is before posing such stupid questions.
@Nawledge1 "A free society is based on voluntary association and socialism doesn't have to be state owned means of production."
ummm yes and no. you and I technically own the military but who do they take their orders from? are u allowed to freely roam whatever part of a military base? NO!
the socialist idea of cooperative ownership is always a misguided handing of power to the state no matter how u try to justifiy it.
socialism doesn't work and never has. history & current events proves this
I don't understand your example. We aren't allowed to roam into a military base because the state doesn't allow us to. And even if we were it probably wouldn't be a good idea with live ammunition being thrown around. And socialism deals with socio-economic conditions. Not the military.
And what does the idea of free associations and cooperatives have to do with the state? These are by their very definitions alternatives to the state.
@Nawledge1 "We aren't allowed to roam into a military base because the state doesn't allow us to. "
exactly. the military under our republic is technically own by "the people" but who really runs it when u think about it?? THE STATE!
"cooperative ownership" is really STATE OWNERSHIP. give the government 100% power over the economy and you'll end up with everyone being equally poor and corporatism still alive and well.
socialism doesn't destroy corporatism it merely CENTRALIZES it.
"cooperative ownership" is really STATE OWNERSHIP.
Not necessarily bro. Ace Hadware is a cooperative and the state doesn't own it. Mondragon in Spain is also a cooperative and it isn't run by the state. It's run by the workers. I can see your point if there is an authoritarian state in complete power like China. But we don't have that here. No one (except commies really) want to give complete and total control to the government.
@Nawledge1 ace hardware is a private business. whenever a socialist mentions cooperative ownership they're always refering to what the government could do. they ALWAYS want the government to interfere and run the economy. a government can NOT run the economy it can ony ensure MINIMAL common sense safety standards, prevent, fraud and enforce contracts, etc.
Not all communist parties "sell" their papers. Workers World only charges if you want it delivered to your door (and even then its like a $10 yearly fee), otherwise its passed out for free. On the flip side groups like RCP (you saw him buy a copy of Revolution, which is the RCP paper) rarely give away papers and generaly charge (during my experience I have never been given a free RCP paper without having to buy it or trade it for a copy of WW).
ComradeLance 2 months ago
This is just facile. First, capitalism is not just "the voluntary exchange of goods and services." It includes the private ownership of the means of production. Second, socialism is a very broad term for ideologies and economics concerned with the social question, which is generally labor.
Read some Proudhon, Tucker, Warren, and Spooner. All supported the voluntary exchange of goods and services (free market). All were socialists.
voltairinedecleyre66 2 months ago 3
Charging for the newsletter is pretty lame though.
voltairinedecleyre66 2 months ago
How are so many people so hoodwinked by this socialism garbage?
sickofcommies 3 months ago
I think you'll find that when working class people are told what free market socialism is, most of them tend to agree even if they have hang ups about calling themselves socialists.
I'm a big supporter of Worker Cooperatives, they've done great things in Europe and have declined mostly due to apathy and state benefits, and honestly I think because Europeans are less inclined towards liberty whereas in America working class Americans in particular value our liberty.
Laissez-faire Socialism USA!
FreeTheWorker 3 months ago
Look at these jackasses, touting a form of government that has failed everywhere for all of time. And they talk about revolution? This is regression. I believe their lack of insight is strongly linked to the fact that they have more education then IQ and real world experience.
Gadsdengirl1776 3 months ago in playlist Jason Mattera
@Gadsdengirl1776 ***more education THAN IQ, not then. Before the grammar police come screeching in.
Gadsdengirl1776 3 months ago in playlist Jason Mattera
Mattera I formally invite you to come to me face to face next time your punk ass thinks he can mock something he doesn't understand. You're an idiot and a pig. I truthfully hope someone whacks you in the mouth, preferably Joe Biden.
blahblahblah86ify 3 months ago
@blahblahblah86ify Lol....if he ever makes it to whatever neck of the woods your moms basement is in, I'm sure he wouldn't be too scared. Funny to me you level these empty threats of violence through the anonymity of youtube but have nothing of substance to say that would suggest you have any actual information on the cause you claim to support. You freaks crack me up. "I need mommy government to wipe my ass, help me, I suck and I want everyone else to."
Gadsdengirl1776 3 months ago in playlist Jason Mattera
Wow such ignorance! What I'd like to know is who gave you the idea everything in socialism is supposed to be free?
sewbuttns 3 months ago
Statist is the appropriate term... People my age seem pretty sold on this idea... I actually heard someone say that they wanted the government to choose their job for them while in school...
Secretsofsociety 3 months ago
Rothbard duly noted: the private property owner has ultimate decision making power over a given geographical are just as surely as the State has a ultimate decision making power over its monopoly. Capitalism has NEVER been free market, nor has it existed without State protection. Hodgskin's or Tucker's analysis show that the capitalism they opposed, is the same that exists now. It will never exist in voluntary form because rational ppl would never separate their product from their labor.
ayguey100 3 months ago
That's it... State socialists are f-ing retarded. End of the story.
GompCelticPL 3 months ago
This guy is a total douche, regardless of the ideas discussed.
TruthAndLoyalty 5 months ago
This uneducated pinhead is clearly unaware that there exists an entire political philosophy called MARKET socialism.
Markets are never the inherent problem, the problem is that the means of production (productive property and institutions) are controlled by a small group of private owners instead of being directly in the hands of the individuals who use them.
MsSexySocialist 5 months ago
@MsSexySocialist A pineapple tree, pepper plant, scissors, chopping board, broom, razor, plates, pen, keyboard, etc. are all 'productive property', 'capital' consumption goods. If you coercively steal any of those that is Statism.
qwertypoiu4321 5 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
No they are possessions, personal property, as they have use-value to the individual possessing them.
Productive property/means of production is "stuff that produces other stuff" which requires more than one person to operate
Also, if you wish to actually seem sound and reasonable in a argument, stop calling everything you don't agree with "statism". It's immature and adds nothing to a proper discussion.
MsSexySocialist 5 months ago
@MsSexySocialist A capital consumption good is a good used to produce another good, a pineapple tree, pepper plant, etc. If you promote a coercive monopoly initiated over a geographical area to coercively steal any of those that is Statism by definition.
qwertypoiu4321 5 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
LOL! pinhead, huh? Look up what market socialism actually means and then look in the mirror. Market socialism is not voluntary socialism.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
I didn't say I was in favor of market socialism, I simply said that it happens to exist; pointing out the fallacy in this simpleton's assertion that socialists are always and inherently opposed to a market-based economy.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
(continued from last comment)
To reiterate, markets are not, and never have been the actual problem; the problem with out current state-capitalist system is the monopolization of productive property, information, decision-making ability and the use of coercion in the hands of a small elite: whether in the hands of a small number of corporate CEOs and shareholders, or in politicians at the reigns of state power.
Both are the problem and both of which we'd be better off without.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Yes, because only if you let the half educated, half drunk worker make decisions, we would all be better off. The same workers who couldn't save enough even to save themselves from "oppression", to create and run a business, are going to save enough to make everyone else better off. Yes!.. I see how sensible you are!
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
If you're a misanthrope and a promoter of class hatred I really can't help you.
It's because of ordinary working people that this economy is able to stay running and why you're able to type those words on your computer put together manually by an Asian worker most likely earning less than a dollar an hour.
So don't be so quick to wage class warfare when it's because of working people that you're able to live your comfy middle-class life and espouse stupid and senseless views.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Because pointing out the obvious is misanthropic? Class hatred? Even socialists agree that workers who remain workers are not able to accumulate enough resources to create their own businesses, while capitalists as former workers have proven their capability to do so.
I am only pointing out the funny contradiction that supposes that people who cannot help themselves out of a perceived "bad" (actually its not bad at all) situation are supposed to be saviors to others?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
Workers (the actual creators of the social product) are unable to accumulate enough resources to start their own business precisely because of the systemic, structural, and institutional biases inherent in the privatist market economy.
When any class (in our case an owning class) monopolizes the means of production and decision-making ability, the institutions which result from this set up perpetuate themselves and generate a system of . . .(continued)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Interesting how you have a problem with - owners as a class owning stuff. A bit tautological are we? It also seems you have a clear distinction of what is and is not a means of production. So tell me is a chair a means of production? How about a knife? or a plate?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
The physical non-human inputs used in the process of production are the MOP. Or in a simplified sense "stuff that can be used to create other stuff - which requires multiple people to operate".
A chair is a piece of personal property (defined by use and/or occupancy). Not an MOP. You know this, yet you ask a question to which you already know the answer?
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Oh, I forgot to tell you that chair, that plate and that knife is being used in my restaurant by my employee. Now is it MOP or just possession?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Depends on the context.
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Depends on the context.
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Why does it matter if it is small or large? Its business, hence it is MOP.
Okay, great! So, in order to keep what is mine... I must NEVER use that chair, that knife or that plate to serve someone else's need in exchange for money. If I do, you classify it as MOP and take it away from me. What a brilliant way to satisfy the needs of human kind!
Ever wonder why socialists make life of their poor victims into ones of utter poverty?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Now you're not even attacking what I actually stand for. You're erecting a straw man then proceeding to tear it down.
I asked about scale because of the question of autogestion (self-management) and its necessity as a mechanism for ensuring economic justice and democracy - and how this was especially important within economies of scale due to the coercive institution of wage-labor.
And you're just being hysterical over the MOP issue.
You = "You wanna take my cutlery away!!!"
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Tell me where I am wrong when I say, that you have no issues with me using a chair or a knife or a plate for my use, but if I use the same equipment to serve food to whoever would buy it, you would deny my ownership of those objects. That I believe is simply repeating what your position.
In such a world, the Sensible thing for resourceful me, is to keep using my possessions for my benefit only. If someone needs food - she can go hungry, even if she is willing to buy it from me.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
You're presupposing that I advocate a for-profit market economy. I do not.
What I would propose as a replacement for both state-capitalist and state-communist economies and political systems is a system involving:
1. The dissolution of the centralized state and its replacement with a decentralized free confederation run according to deliberative participatory democracy.
2. Political and economic coordination via a system of nested democratic assemblies (DAs for short)
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Nope.. now you ARE strawmanning me. I do not assume that you are advocating for-profit. I am painfully aware that you are anti-profit economy.
You seem to be resorting to diversions in an effort to not concede that in your system, a resourceful person better not trade with others on the basis of items/equipment he intends to keep in his own possession. Once he does, those items are MOP, and cannot be privately owned and he is a dirty capitalist if he asserts ownership of them.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
"Dirty capitalist"? Really?
I truly thought you were above loaded language and such over-emotional terminology.
In any case, how does one ACQUIRE property in the first place? It has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is out of the social product which every actor in the economy contributes to.
There is only so much of that social product to go around and it makes zero sense for certain individuals to monopolize the MOP - which should be usable by all.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Social product? Wrong!
It has to come out of savings of individual consumer, i.e. Me! If I want to sell you, say a egg-salad tomorrow(MOP = plate, table, chair, knife, fork), I have to reduce my current consumption, deny myself that extra weekend beer so I have enough saved up to trade for the MOP, with MOP makers or give up use of potential MOP myself (in case of my household table), in order to produce that egg-salad. I did not rob anyone by not drinking that beer did I?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
I did say that in the scenario I was proposing that MOP could be leased on a long-term basis to anyone wishing to enter the economy as an active participant as opposed to a wage-worker.
You don't have to pay anything for it, you just have to keep to the terms of the contract you acquired it through.
And indecently, your savings also come out of the social product - everything that results from the productive process does.
Problem is, the wages of some are grossly inequitable.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Surely, you see how obtuse your arguments are getting. Why don't you accept the fact that in your system, a resourceful person better not utilize whatever resources he has - just sit tight and hold on to that chair and knife - keep them as possessions? If he chooses to use them as MOP for any enterprise, then he loses ownership of those things. Instead, he should "lease" such MOP from some source that has enough blast furnaces for everyone who wants one...?!
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
Again, you're assuming that the property people own just comes out of nowhere.
Everything economic actors come to possess has to come out of the gross social product that results from the productive process. Whatever "resources a person has" always come from the efforts of other people - unless you're able to be completely self-sufficient.
Ig you're a resourceful person then you should be able to make the best of yourself with whatever means are available to you . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
No, I am not assuming that. IF you read my posts and you will see that I never assume that.
You are trying to define everything produced as social product, if this is so, then no one can have private possessions at all. Ironically, this does logically and inevitably lead to the "taking away of my cutlery". Just putting "social" in front of "product" does not make all "products" social, although that would be hard for you to see.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
That's not what I'm doing at all.
As you'd see if you read MY previous posts, I fully support and vehemently defend the right to personal property ownership - defined by personal use and occupancy (a house, a car, a DVD collection, and yes, cutlery of course).
And everything produced IS a social product. That's what "social product" means; the net produce of society as a whole.
The question after it's been produced is how to divide it up and what should be allocated where
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
You are making futile attempts at obfuscation and avoiding my question. But, I will return to my original question - If I own personal property of a table, a chair, a plate and a knife, am I free to use them as I see fit? Say to generate a product ..say a bread, and sell it for profit? Do I still own those pieces of personal property against the claims of anyone else?
It is a YES or NO question!
What if I allow Bob to borrow those things in exchange of a usage fee? Y/N
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Let me just make this clear before I say this, I am NOT avoiding you question so please just bear with me for a moment.
I never explained it thus far but it is an important point and one that completely alters the context of your question. What I am conceptualizing in this future libertarian socialist integrated system actually involves a post-money economy.
There is no actual currency in the present sense of the term. Instead, what is proposed is replacing it with . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Oh, so instead of answering a simple yes or no question first - and then explaining how your society is designed, you are going to go on and on about how your society is designed? I find this mildly amusing now that you feel compelled to go thru. My question will still remain the same, even after your ten thousand rule pontification and clarifications. It is very simple YES or NO question and is not going to change regardless of what you are telling me.. just so you know.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (B)
(cont) . . . index of desirability + onerousness. To measure labor in terms of labor hours is ridiculous as some occupations are more difficult or dangerous than others - and they should naturally pay more.
2. "Ruling party"? Really? Are you serious?
Because if you actually are you didn't even read several of my messages where I clearly pointed out I want the state totally ABOLISHED in the long-term. Then again this may just be an immature insult with no actual content (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (C)
With regard to your question, as I tried to make clear, it isn't possible to give a simplistic yes or no answer because:
(A) The context is completely different.
(B) The question itself is loaded.
It's like a medieval Duke asking a present-day capitalist:
"Does this economy of yours mean you'll take my castle and serfs away?"
"Well, you don't understand, it wouldn't actually be possible to have either. People shouldn't be involuntary serfs, they should be free to-"
"YES OR NO!"
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Well, the honest answer for the Duke-capitalist conversation is .. NO. No one is going to take away his castle or his serfs. If his serfs however choose to leave and take up employment elsewhere, the Duke can do nothing unless he wants to militarily harm them, which would be considered a crime in capitalist system. See.. answered in one post.
The question I asked is only loaded because you cannot honestly say "Yes" because that would make you look terrible.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
And you cannot say "No" because that is fundamentally denying the basic premise of your ideology. i.e. People can own MOP and just because they used something as MOP does not negate their ownership in the objects under consideration.
So next time have the intellectual honesty and admit that - once something is used as MOP - the owner looses exclusive ownership of the knife, chair and table etc. etc. No need to go in circles.. whats the point? You will have to admit it at some time
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
(cont) . . . same way that we no longer accept that a nation-state should be undemocratic as they need to be accountable to the people they serve.
TO TRY TO NOW ANSWER YOUR QUESTION:
As I said before, the context changed the nature of the question (ie: it isn't possible to make a monetary profit in an economy without money) so it wasn't as simple as Y/N.
But for the sake of simplicity, I suppose I would say: "NO".
And that doesn't go against my beliefs. . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (3)
(cont) . . . what it goes against is what you seem to THINK my beliefs are.
Away from the economic dimension, let me now ask a few questions re: politics.
1. In YOUR ideal polity/economy, what should the role of government be?
2. If "none" (which is my position), do you then support the dissolution of the state?
3. How is it you feel privatist ownership and control of the MOP isn't just monopolization and oligopoly given the top-down hierarchical structure of such institutions?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
1. Role of government - None.
2. No reason to support dissolution of the state, it is dissolving itself
3. Just like Private ownership of chairs is not monopoly - so is ownership of a blast furnace, not a monopoly. The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!). Is it a monopoly - sure, and so is control over your own body, but it is restricted to THAT privately owned object.
utubehayter 4 months ago
Comment removed
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (C)
(cont) . . . and a privatist advocate of free markets, but do you specifically desire in the long term a stateless society (anarcho-capitalism) or a minimal state for dealing with external issues/protecting people from fraud and coercion (minarchist capitalism)?
"Private ownership of chairs is not monopoly"
That's because ownership of chairs and the like can be defined by use and occupancy. Personal possession does not involve absentee ownership or hoarding of the . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (D)
(cont) . . . MOP for private gain at social expense.
"The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!)"
Yes there is - as I explained already. MOP are "stuff that can create other stuff" which generally requires more than one person to operate; factories and natural ecology for example.
"Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too?"
I'm guessing here that you're talking about the . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter (D)
(cont) . . . MOP for private gain at social expense.
"The error you seem to be making is - first assuming that there is a definable category of objects called MOP (no such thing!)"
Yes there is - as I explained already. MOP are "stuff that can create other stuff" which generally requires more than one person to operate; factories and natural ecology for example.
"Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too?"
I'm guessing here that you're talking about the . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
Should we dissolve your monopoly over your body too? After all, every nutrition you fed it was a "social product" too! Understand that this means any one can rape you as he/she deems desirable.
I have no problem with hierarchy, top-down or bottom up. There are different skills people have that are suited for different tasks. Not everyone is capable of designing a product, nor is everyone capable of lugging 200 lbs. Why should society be flattened? Just to suit your aesthetic preference?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (E)
(sorry for so many of these)
(cont) . . . right-libertarian/privatist concept of "self-ownership".
There's no such thing. It's a silly possessive individualist which seeks to justify selfish and anti-social actions by declaring that you "own yourself" and everything you come to possess via mixing labor or capital then becomes an extension of the self - which then goes on to the equally foolish "homesteading" principle.
It's a mode of thought best suited to . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Do you know of the position of the totalitarian-libertarians?
utubehayter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter
"Do you know of the position of the totalitarian-libertarians?"
That's an oxymoron dude.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Same goes for socialist-libertarian.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
What does?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Ah, now I see the comment this was linked from.
Do yourself a favor, look up a certain individual from the 1850s called Joseph Déjacque and try saying that again.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Hahaha.... right. You know I am the first one to call myself Omni-master. It will mean master of the universe by the time you read it. And because I call myself that, I must really be master of the universe.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
So your DENYING that we (the anti-state socialists) actually coined the term you now use to describe yourself?
If so congratulations on your willingness to keep up such an extraordinary bluff for so long despite one and half centuries of history being against you.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
No. I have no reason to deny it. It would be arguing with a strawman. Because coining a term does not mean you own it or you have defined it as such. If I call a buffalo, a tiger (while talking of its wonderful stripes and paws and claws AND horns and hoofs), doesn't make the buffalo into a tiger, it only helps identify the person using the term as not knowing what he is talking about. Same thing applies to people from the past and same thing applies to future.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (E)
(sorry for so many of these)
(cont) . . . right-libertarian/privatist concept of "self-ownership".
There's no such thing. It's a silly possessive individualist which seeks to justify selfish and anti-social actions by declaring that you "own yourself" and everything you come to possess via mixing labor or capital then becomes an extension of the self - which then goes on to the equally foolish "homesteading" principle.
It's a mode of thought best suited to . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (F) (Final)
(cont) . . . spoiled adolescent boys.
"I have no problem with hierarchy, top-down or bottom up."
This just about says it all really. You do realize that is tantamount to saying you support societal domination?
The whole goal of any philosophy seeking possitive social change should be societal liberation from systems of control and subordination, you're saying you wish to perpetuate all of this?
"Why should society be flattened?"
It shouldn't. That's what you can't get.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
"Having no problem with hierarchy" is "support societal domination"?
Why should I decide what and how other people MUST NOT organize themselves? If they want hierarchies.. let them have it. If they want flattened society .. let them have it.
Why must I have a problem with hierarchy? And how does that mean I am supporting domination of any kind?
Here is an analogy of your claim - if you aren't for exterminating Jews, then you are supporting extermination of Muslims.
utubehayter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter "Here is an analogy of your claim - if you aren't for exterminating Jews, then you are supporting extermination of Muslims."
That's a false dichotomy. Which is not what I was making.
Societal hierarchy naturally leads to societal domination and a master-servant relationship. Although in the context we're talking about it might be more apt to call this "kyriarchy" (look up the term if you don't know of it).
"Voluntary hierarchy" would be oxymoronic in a liberated society.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Hierarchy in the social political and economic realms is by definition dominatory.
Hierarchy (or more specifically kyriarchy) breeds structures and relationships leading a master-slave relationship.
Hierarchy inevitably leads to control and subordination; the enemy of freedom of the individual and autonomy.
And your "analogy" is a false dichotomy.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Say you know how to perform a dance, I and 2 of my friends want to learn from you. We come to you and request that you teach us (for compensation that you agree with). Now you are the teacher, we are the students.
Does that mean you are dominating me and my 2 friends? Is it "inevitable" that you will restrict
1. where we can live
2. who can we talk to
3. what objects and under what conditions we are allowed to own (sound familiar)?
.. and so on?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
That's not a hierarchical relationship - it's a mutualistic relationship.
When I say "hierarchy" in a social, political, or economic context, I mean specifically kyriarchy.
Many of the social relation we have that may seem hierarchical are actually mutualistic ones: eg: teacher-student, parent-child, master-apprentice.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Ah.. so which other relationships may sound mutualistic but are really hierarchial?
Let me guess - Employee-employer?
After all, what I and my 2 friends asked you to do is provide a service for us - in return we agreed to compensate you. We, were the employers. You were the employee.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Remember what I keep saying? Post-money economy.
In which case the instance your talking about wouldn't involve any cash changing hands.
If If I taught you how to dance that would either be:
(A) Me simply providing a service occupation, in which I'd get payed in accordance with my job's level of the I+O Index.
or (B) I'd be doing it on a pro bono basis.
With regard to your (possibly sarcastic) question, yes, employer-employee IS hierarchical WHEN IT'S INSTITUTIONALIZED.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Oh... duh! I missed that.
Oh, and money is a medium of exchange. If you have LVs as means of exchange, then LVs ARE your money. The only way you can have a "post-money" economy is .... you stop paying people or for stuff (i.e. no trade, just grab stuff and it is yours). I would say that is an anti-economy... but what do I know
How do you know if employer-employee relationship is institutionalized and teacher-student is not?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Well then it's a good thing that a system of LVs are NOT a medium of exchange - they cannot circulate and are non-transferable between people. When you pay $10 for something, it isn't "exchanged", it ceases to exist.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
Look, I feel at this point that the question you asked has become muddled over the issue of economies of scale. Looking back over the comments I noticed that I asked about what kind of restaurant you had in mind. This was intended to be a separate question but I guess I didn't make that clear and it wound up getting mixed up in the issue.
I was attempting to make the point that in the future, economies of scale must by necessity be democratically administered in the . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
Look, I feel at this point that the question you asked has become muddled over the issue of economies of scale. Looking back over the comments I noticed that I asked about what kind of restaurant you had in mind. This was intended to be a separate question but I guess I didn't make that clear and it wound up getting mixed up in the issue.
I was attempting to make the point that in the future, economies of scale must by necessity be democratically administered in the . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
So, I had a large restaurant (large as defined by you) then I wont own the MOP that I have. If I am small - then rules of justice and ownership are flipped on their heads and magically I am now allowed to keep my MOP.
In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do. God forbid, that you work hard, open early, stay open late, ensure good quality, provide prompt service and your restaurant grows "large"! Then you loose ownership of what you got and earned.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
I think you imagine common ownership to be able to lease out anything. Its not possible unless you have a state in any of its variants. Just answer this - who will sign off on such a lease as the "lessor"? In common parlance, it is the owner of the resource being leased and by owner, it means private ownership.
No, there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
"Just answer this - who will sign off on such a lease as the "lessor"?"
I already explained all this to you in a previous comment - further evidence to my belief that you didn't actually read any of them.
To reiterate; there is no state. It is replaced by a polity that consists of a decentralized confederation of autonomous communities administered through deliberative participatory democracy through a network of nested "Democratic Assemblies" or DAs.
(continued)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
Each person signs up for one of these DAs and through them is able to democratically affect local policy.
It is these DAs that lease out MOP (which is held in common) to anyone wishing to engage in production.
"there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!"
You're talking far-future here. That wouldn't be possible unless we lived in a post-scarcity society.
Here and now man
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
Each person signs up for one of these DAs and through them is able to democratically affect local policy.
It is these DAs that lease out MOP (which is held in common) to anyone wishing to engage in production.
"there is no need for larger MOP to have more individuals. It could all be automated - to prevent "exploitation" of workers. No workers, no exploitation!"
You're talking far-future here. That wouldn't be possible unless we lived in a post-scarcity society.
Here and now man
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
"It is replaced by a polity that consists of a decentralized confederation of autonomous communities administered through deliberative participatory democracy through a network of nested "Democratic Assemblies" or DAs."
In other words... replace A democratically STATE with MANY STATES.
I don't want to ridicule you, on obvious things at least. So please stop provoking me.
Why is the decisions of a 5 plumber+10 carpenter+2 baker supposed to be good for baking bread?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
"In other words... replace A democratically STATE with MANY STATES."
A state is by definition a "monopoly on the use of coercion". This cannot exist is a situation where each autonomous individual has democratic decision-making input in proportion to the degree they are affected - ie: universal participatory democracy.
"I don't want to ridicule you, on obvious things at least. So please stop provoking me."
I'm just giving my opinion. I can't see how I'm provoking" you by doing so.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Right, because calling an entity that can decide to give EVERY single MOP is really about autonomy. It is the same thing if it gives it to Bob.. or to me.
Since you don't understand what I am aiming at - Do you realize that democratic decision making is simple mob majority rule? Its obviously NOT autonomous for the loosing minority.
Do you realize that quitting minority of socialist "autonomous" societies are considered by their legal system as thieves of public domain services?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Mob rule is not democracy in the sense I am using the term.
In true democracy (participatory democracy) the majority must never be able to impose their will upon a minority - no matter how small. It requires deliberation and decision making by CONSENSUS not majority vote.
As I said; "Decision-making in proportion to the degree one is affected".
And NO ONE (person or institution) has the right to override the will of the individual.
UNLESS, your actions restrict another's freedom.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter (A)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter (A)
"In short - Don't try to be successful at whatever business you do."
Either you didn't even read my outline of a proposed libertarian socialist future polity/economy or you're now deliberately misinterpreting my position.
With the system of common ownership of the MOP and usufruct to people and groups, the size and scale of the MOP you lease out is dependent on the amount of people wishing to start a business.
Ergo: The larger the MOP, the more individuals required . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (B)
(cont) . . . to contractually lease it out.
So the only possible way for a business to actually "grow" would be to bring in new partners to help run it. Post-money economy remember? Monetary profit isn't possible; and neither is the imagined scenario you mocked up where your surplus gain are somehow "seized".
"No reason to support dissolution of the state, it is dissolving itself"
With respect, this isn't answering the question. You claim to be a right-libertarian . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist
Oh, so instead of answering a simple yes or no question first - and then explaining how your society is designed, you are going to go on and on about how your society is designed? I find this mildly amusing now that you feel compelled to go thru. My question will still remain the same, even after your ten thousand rule pontification and clarifications. It is very simple YES or NO question and is not going to change regardless of what you are telling me.. just so you know.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
(cont) . . . a dual-tier system of free access (for basic needs) and an electronic "Labor Voucher" (LV) form of remuneration to pay for any non-basic commercial goods and services.
Say I want to buy the complete "Avatar: The Last Airbender" on blu-ray, I have $1000 and it costs say $60. When I scan it at a self-service till and slip my "LV card" into it and select "purchase", my $60 is deducted from my total, but doesn't go into the till. I simply ceases to exist . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Labor voucher? Yikes! Just to save you a lot of trouble.. labor theory of value is not held as valid even by Marxists.. let alone anyone else. Which means you cannot exchange goods for labor hours.. which means as a medium of exchange labor vouchers are completely useless. But you are right about loyalty points.. loyalty to the ruling party that is.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (A)
Okay, two things:
1. On the LTV, I do not believe in it and do not believe it works in practice. I believe in Robin Hahnel's "Theory of economic justice" which doesn't apply to the determination of product or service value, but establishes a flexible criterion for what are appropriate levels of remuneration for one's labor.
That being: *reward commensurate with the level of personal sacrifice* Personal sacrifice being macroeconomically measurable by a proposed . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Do you know by now, what you are saying? and more importantly why you are dancing around the question? I am thoroughly amused.. you can see why, I hope. Please consider that you have stumbled upon the idea that your ideology is anti-human in its actual working, no amount of escape hatch detail is going to change that fact. It has nothing to do with the size of my operation.. It only has to do with the principle of and incentives created by denying private ownership in MOP.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter(3)
(cont) So essentially it's a system more akin to loyalty points or frequent flier miles than traditional money
Thus, the thing is, what you ask about in your question wouldn't actually be possible as there is no medium of exchange
In fact, the only reason I feel we couldn't transition to a complete free access economy is because of the issue of scarcity and the lack of sufficient cybernation and automation of rote labor
So the LVs are basically a way of rationing scarce resources
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (B)
(cont) State-capitalism gets this completely backwards due to its structurally unjust and inequitable system of remuneration and the monopolization of MOP by a small few private elites.
State-capitalism = "To each according to property and bargaining power".
State-Communism = "To each according to output (ie: genetic lottery >> more reward)
However, a truly just system of reward would be this:
Economic justice = "To each according to personal sacrifice tempered by personal need"
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
(cont) . . . but what you seem to be overlooking is that the way we act in the economy affects not just us but everyone and everything around us.
It is therefore important to look at economic issues in terms of freedom of choice - taking into account both the individual and the social dimensions.
The ideal scenario is to ensure that everyone has the same level of freedom of choice in the economy as everyone else and preventing situations where one actor is able to . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (3)
(cont) . . . limit the freedom of choice for another.
So you see, when one is able to own and control in such a way that reduces another's ability to choose, (ie: monopolization) the freedom of choice and decision-making ability of one increases while society's is reduced.
Look, if you want to use your own possessions to inhance your business there's no problem. The problem comes in when someone can own something like a whole factory or building and control everything inside it.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (B)
(Cont)
3. Common (indivisible) ownership of the MOP. As opposed to state, private, corporate or collective ownership.
4. MOP could then be leased out on long-term contract to any individual or group who wishes to engage in production/start a business/become self-employed.
5. Leasing done via negotiated contractual agreement between the DAs/confederation and the party wishing to obtain MOP for use in production.
(Cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (C)
(cont)
6. The larger the scale of the MOP, the more individuals required to lease it out.
(eg: a small local store = one person. A large auto factory = about a hundred or more)
7. Large and small scale cooperatives would make the most sense as the most common form of business, but any kind could exist AS LONG AS no business uses wage-labor (working for others without decision-making input)
8. If terms of a negotiated contract are broken, MOP could be repossessed
That everything?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Why does it matter if it is small or large? Its business, hence it is MOP.
Okay, great! So, in order to keep what is mine... I must NEVER use that chair, that knife or that plate to serve someone else's need in exchange for money. If I do, you classify it as MOP and take it away from me. What a brilliant way to satisfy the needs of human kind!
Ever wonder why socialists make life of their poor victims into ones of utter poverty?
utubehayter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@utubehayter
Depends on the context.
In the case of your restaurant, they are MOP which you've leased out for the purposes of running a business.
Just like if you were part of a software company, the computers you use would be MOP but if one of them was in your house for private or family use, it's personal property.
Additionally, are we talking small restaurant round the corner, or mega-chain?
Because it makes no sense for economies of scale to NOT be self-managed in a post-industrial economy
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1)
The physical non-human inputs used in the process of production are the MOP. Or in a simplified sense "stuff that can be used to create other stuff - which requires multiple people to operate".
A chair is a piece of personal property (defined by use and/or occupancy). Not an MOP. You know this, yet you ask a question to which you already know the answer?
(cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Surely you have heard of John D. Rockefeller? The fabric of "systemic, structural and institutional biases" opened up and thru a rift of space-time continuum ...blah! blah! blah!... and so JDR got rich?
When you say "monopolize", do you mean "Owners exercise rights of ownership"? Its tautological but I can see how you seem to believe that "me owning A hammer" means "no one else can own hammers".
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter (1/2)
"When you say "monopolize", do you mean "Owners exercise rights of ownership"?"
As deliberately loaded as that question is, I'll answer it. When I said "monopolize" I meant it entirely in relation to the MOP. The MOP should - if we lived in a truly free an equitable society - be freely available for the use of all. Common ownership and usufruct could offer that an enable everyone to become an independent economic actor and not have to fulfill their ambitions . . . (cont)
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Actually they are just trivial questions even a child can answer, if they don't have a totalitarian outlook on life and the world.
The only thing that common ownership and usufruct can offer is stagnation for a short while, if you are lucky, and eventually and inevitably poverty, death, violence and starvation. Wherever it has been tried through out history, it has ALWAYS delivered these conditions. You want to try it.. AGAIN?.. go ahead. Not going to stop you.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
"Wherever it has been tried through out history, it has ALWAYS delivered these conditions."
Spain and catalonia 1936-37
Zapatista councils of good government 1994-present
The Israeli Kibbutz movement (still going after more than a century).
You were saying?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Spain - To be fair, it was under war conditions and it did not have the time to settle. Ironically, they were defeated because they could not resolve their disputes over control of things, (EVEN with communists!) which is my objection to your system.
Israeli Kibbutz- They were funded by Israeli government, IDF to be specific, because they thought this is what would help "cultivate" patriotism and national integrity (read to make soldiers willing to fight for the nation state).
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
"they could not resolve their disputes over control of things, (EVEN with communists!)"
Actually the Communists were the ones who ruined the entire thing. It wasn't a case of Left vs. left, it was a case of libertarian vs. authoritarian. Aside from both being consider "left" or "socialist" they were completely different systems.
Re: Israeli Kibbutzism:
They are now but their founding predates the state of Israel. Admittedly though this is not a good thing and shouldn't be the case.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Right.. because communists too do not understand and have the same problem.
People have been living in communes going a while back - and they ended up being poor. Some even accept poverty as "God's wish". This btw, has been an essential condition for continuous existence of a common-property society.
The only reason Kibbutz is even in consideration for not being a total failure is its relative persistence.. not success. And state funding is the secret behind its persistence!
utubehayter 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Communists and your kind simply do not understand that their system is totalitarian. Because you have no concept of just ownership - you simply cannot decide whether a particular good belongs to/or should be allocated to X or Y. Add in the fact that most of these communities suffer unbalanced supply of goods due to inherent irrational production, it is simply inevitable. "You manage yours, I will mine" is not even an option due to "indivisible" and common property.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Do you even know what you're talking about?
How many alternative economic systems have you even studied? because all you seem to be doing is mouthing off a bunch of non-specific objections to some floating abstraction you see as "my system".
There are numerous different proposed systems of economic coordination and allocation in a non-statist cooperative economy and ZERO of them have any of the problems you just tossed out - even in theory.
Look up "artificial market" for one thing
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Do you even know what you're talking about?
How many alternative economic systems have you even studied? because all you seem to be doing is mouthing off a bunch of non-specific objections to some floating abstraction you see as "my system".
There are numerous different proposed systems of economic coordination and allocation in a non-statist cooperative economy and ZERO of them have any of the problems you just tossed out - even in theory.
Look up "artificial market" for one thing
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
I have considered the fascist model, the God-based communism, the science(environmental or robots)-based communism, Market socialism (also called "artificial market"), Nationalism, Autarky, Marxist Socialism, democratic socialism as practiced in 3 different nations and "mixed" economy (aka some socialism, some market).
As to economic coordination, sure show me a system that is coordinated enough to thrive. Anything with Democracy in it, is overt rejection of reason and thrift.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
"Market socialism (also called "artificial market"),"
First mistake. (1) Market socialism operates with the continued existence of the state. It is not an example of libertarian socialism. The same system without a state is called "Mutualism", and (2) the artificial market presupposes a stateless economy involving participatory democracy and self-management.
Your mistake here confirms my original feeling that you haven't really studied any of the systems you mentioned.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
How many times do I have to tell you that your system as YOU proposed it, involves many totalitarian states? I don't know if you seem to believe that simply dividing a state to even more totalitarian and into smaller groups makes it not exist at all. Many states =/= Stateless!
Your so-called "participatory democracy and self-management" is the state. The term democracy itself is a dead giveaway.
You seem more interested in dismissing criticisms than examining them.
utubehayter 4 months ago
Comment removed
utubehayter 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
Let me approach this another way, what about "participatory democracy and self-management" is so benign to you? I would give you a small capital allocation problem here, but the 500 char limit is far too short for it. Once you have any democracy, best demagogue wins!
"I will give everyone free cars, toothbrushes, houses" etc. etc. etc. - gains the most votes, regardless of whether the proposed "solution" is feasible or will do everything a state does.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
More evidence that you weren't actually listening to what I was saying.
First, you assumed by "democracy" I meant "mob rule" or referendum democracy (eg: Prop 8), then when I explained to you what I actually did mean, you come back having now ignored everything I clarified and confused it with representative democracy.
The whole process of "participatory democracy" (if you bothered to look up a definition) is hard-wired so that "demagoguery" cannot exist
DO SOME READING NEXT TIME!
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
You are claiming that participatory democracy is not vulnerable to demogoguery.. I need some evidence for this. I think you are simply ignoring reality of human nature, that
1. we vary in our wants, needs and desires
2. that we make mistakes
3. if we suffer consequences for the wrong decisions of others, we resent them.
4. we rationalize decisions we take and find scapegoats. E.g. if only THEY worked harder..etc. etc.
5. conflict of interests must be resolved to avoid violence.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
1. Say one individual decides to seperate from a DA, does he get a share of the MOP or equivalent valued goods?
2. Is he allowed to seperate at all, if he has been educated, fed, raised etc. (i.e. used PDS) without being accused of theft? What are the chances that such accusations would not arise in such society if that person happens to become wealthy once he leaves?
3. Once outside, if he trades and gathers extra MOP - will his right to property in MOP be recognized by the DA?
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter
Would you mind if this was continued through PM?
It's just that at this point this comments section seems to have become way too crowded and I'd need to have enough space to adequately respond to all 3 of those questions. As well as those 5 points in your message before that.
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@MsSexySocialist
I have no problems with PM, but only if you agree to post what you, I think, will finally have to concede as responses to my latest 3 questions.
utubehayter 4 months ago
@utubehayter State-Socialism (Merriam-Webster): 2b. a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.
'mssexysocialist' is a State-Socialist: "The means of production (productive property) [...] would be under common ownership"
Proudhon/Bakunin/Kropotkin/Rocker/Bookchin/Guérin/Chomsky/Albert/McKay are all State-Socialists (I have quotes of each calling for State-Socialism, just PM me if you want them).
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Of Marx and Fotopoulos as well.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
"Definition of STATE SOCIALISM
: an economic system with *limited socialist characteristics*"
--Merriam-Webster
Statism cannot by definition exist without a state. Get over it and move on.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
She is too shallow to understand coercive State ownership of capital goods involves a coercive institution initiated over a geographical area: a State (by definition!). She will howl 'common ownership' as she initates Stalinist State-Socialism, as the Stalinists did themselves.
State-Socialist Lenin:
"common property. [...] the common ownership of the means of production,"
State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist':
"The means of production (productive property) [...] would be under common ownership"
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 When they get the chance to (once again) initiate Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist State-Socialism and society rejects this dungeon State, State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist' will be there howling 'Common ownership! Common ownership!', just as the Bolsheviks did.
When the State comes and steals ('expropriates') all of your voluntary property, State-Socialist 'mssexysocialist' will be there howling 'Common ownership! Common ownership!', just as the Bolsheviks did.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
And what pray tell, do you think "common ownership" is supposed to mean?
It seems once again that you're incapable of forming a rational and coherent case against libertarian socialism, so you continue to ramble incoherently against something which libertarian socialism is actually innately opposed to.
What I fail to understand about you even after having heard all your silly opinions, is why you continue to pontificate so much about subjects of which you are so clearly ignorant
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist Lenin was clear: "the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. [...] the common ownership of the means of production,"
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
You already made this point remember?
And I explained that by Lenin's own definition of what you he considered "socialism" in State and Revolution, (that being common ownership) the USSR never achieved it. Primarily because it could never achieve it as Leninist (and also Marxist) theory is inherently flawed in believing that centralized state control could lead over time to democratic control and universal participation.
Once again, stubborn ignorance on display.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
Creating criminal code-terms for State ownership of Capital Goods is a State-Socialist full-time contrived job:
Common, Us All, Community, Social Property, Collective Product, Common Property, Society, Exension Owned by State, Concentrated in the Hands of a Vast Association of the Whole Nation, Create a New Social Order, Collective Ownership, Common Property of Society, Convert Into Common Property, Common Ownership, Social Ownership Established, Owned by the Whole People, take over, etc.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 Apparently it went over your head, all of these code-terms mean coercive (State) ownership of capital goods.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
"Criminal" code terms? lol
Do you even realize how silly you sound?
I realize at this point that what you seem to be consistently guilty of has a name: jonahism (after Jonah Goldberg). Assuming out of either ignorance or laziness that everyone who disagrees with you is somehow coming from the same point of view.
AND you could still never conjure up solutions to your own infantile ideals of a pseudo-anarchist capitalist utopia - Problems I + II which I explained to you.
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
You mean coercive State ownership but deceivingly cover this fact up with reactionary code-terms, i.e. criminal code-terms. If someone said it is not slavery if they coercively 'borrow' you in their basement, 'borrow' would be a criminal code-term for coercive enslavement.
In regard to how to achieve X society and if it is possible, any system different in any way to the current will have to use the tactics I outlined, and 9 core non-State example systems have existed in the last 1500 years.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 You can not explain how to get to your State-Socialist system and historical examples of such a system because the only answer is to expand State power and point to Dungeon Socialst States from the past, since those are the only examples of your State-Socialist system you have.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321
I explained clearly to you the concepts of dual power and gradualism. The fault is yours for either ignoring this or being too lazy to bother looking up what the concepts mean.
Additionally, I also fail to understand how on earth you expect to be taken seriously by ANYONE friend or foe when you use ridiculously over-emotional and hyperbolic language such as "criminal", "slavery", "dungeon statism" ect.
Just how many members have you got in your mob for establishing voluntaryism?
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@MsSexySocialist There is the Voluntary Class vs. the Coercive, Criminal Class. All of this Maoist, Stalinist, Leninist, Bolshevik, State-Socialist criminalism State-Socialist Rachel supports will never be accepted.
No one will ever accept mini area's of criminal mob expropriation of capital goods as you promote, or gradual State-Socialism; it will never happen.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
Never mind you have *ZERO* physical examples of your criminal State-Socialism ever being morally desirable without being a coercive, criminal system at its core.
'Slavery' and 'Dungeon Socialism' are terms Chomsky uses.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
The Voluntary Class will do every tactic in their power to end the coercive State, just like ending Criminal Class chattel enslavement or the murder of animals, and criminal Statists like yourself will go nowhere, only spending all of your time being criminal bodyguards for the criminal State until your Criminal Class eventually loses to the Voluntary Class.
Your criminal Statism will always be rejected.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 (1/2)
Wow. In less than 1200 characters you managed to use the word "criminal" no less than 11 times.
Ever think of expanding your vocabulary?
In any case, this "voluntary class" doesn't exist and never will, as every one of the positions you hold run contrary to the interests of the global working population.
The kind of absurd, absolutist, egotistical, possessive individualism you advocate as the basis for a future society appeals to no-one but ignorant teenagers.
[cont]
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
@qwertypoiu4321 (2/2)
Additionally, I have no reason to believe you even have it within you to actually do anything in the way of trying to achieve this fantasy society of yours
Judging by both the content and style of your writing, I'm guessing you're simply some spoilt rich kid who's read a little Murray Rothbard and now thinks he's got the whole world figured out.
Well sorry, but you don't - especially human beings.
The fact you display traits of a religious fanatic and sociopath doesn't help
MsSexySocialist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MsSexySocialist There is the Voluntary Class vs. the Coercive, Criminal Class.
You are the Coercive, Criminal Class: you are the type of person that wants to coerce and murder anyone that does not do what you want.
qwertypoiu4321 3 months ago
@utubehayter (2)
(cont from last)
Look, you seem like an intelligent guy overall, and this is precisely why it strikes me as so odd that you don't bother to look up or clarify anything I've said. This combined with you're repeated straw man attacks and silly insults instead of actual content.
I have not thus far (if I have please correct me) even once mischaracterized any position you hold or tried to do so. Why do you not extend the same courtesy?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (2/2)
(cont) . . . on anybody else's terms.
"I can see how you seem to believe that "me owning A hammer" means "no one else can own hammers"."
(Sigh) Again with the putting words in my mouth. The civil thing to do here would be to ask about the ownership of hammers, not tell me what I supposedly believe.
In any case, own all the hammers you want to. But if you wanted to own a hammer-making factory and control everything within it, I would say no.
Also, how am I "provoking you"?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter (B)
(Continued) . . . control and subordination which in turn breeds the systemic coercion of the "grow or die" imperative which private enterprise markets operate on.
In short, it can be pretty hard to work yourself out of a bad system when the system itself is actively and structurally working against you.
And who exactly said working people were meant to be "saviors" to others?
Who are these "others" you're referring to?
MsSexySocialist 4 months ago
@utubehayter
You do realize that there is a great part of society that are not workers, right?
utubehayter 4 months ago
I finally found the republican side of craziness on utube.
Cametheron 6 months ago
"Aren't socialists against the voluntary exchange of goods and services?"
Um...no. Voluntarism isn't a capitalist idea. It's voluntarism. A free society is based on voluntary association and socialism doesn't have to be state owned means of production. It could be cooperative means of production. And if you don't like that cooperative you could asscoiate with another one. That's voluntarism.
People really need to learn what socialism is before posing such stupid questions.
Nawledge1 7 months ago
@Nawledge1 "A free society is based on voluntary association and socialism doesn't have to be state owned means of production."
ummm yes and no. you and I technically own the military but who do they take their orders from? are u allowed to freely roam whatever part of a military base? NO!
the socialist idea of cooperative ownership is always a misguided handing of power to the state no matter how u try to justifiy it.
socialism doesn't work and never has. history & current events proves this
dab0331 7 months ago
@dab0331
I don't understand your example. We aren't allowed to roam into a military base because the state doesn't allow us to. And even if we were it probably wouldn't be a good idea with live ammunition being thrown around. And socialism deals with socio-economic conditions. Not the military.
And what does the idea of free associations and cooperatives have to do with the state? These are by their very definitions alternatives to the state.
Nawledge1 7 months ago
@Nawledge1 "We aren't allowed to roam into a military base because the state doesn't allow us to. "
exactly. the military under our republic is technically own by "the people" but who really runs it when u think about it?? THE STATE!
"cooperative ownership" is really STATE OWNERSHIP. give the government 100% power over the economy and you'll end up with everyone being equally poor and corporatism still alive and well.
socialism doesn't destroy corporatism it merely CENTRALIZES it.
dab0331 7 months ago
@dab0331
"cooperative ownership" is really STATE OWNERSHIP.
Not necessarily bro. Ace Hadware is a cooperative and the state doesn't own it. Mondragon in Spain is also a cooperative and it isn't run by the state. It's run by the workers. I can see your point if there is an authoritarian state in complete power like China. But we don't have that here. No one (except commies really) want to give complete and total control to the government.
Nawledge1 7 months ago
@Nawledge1 ace hardware is a private business. whenever a socialist mentions cooperative ownership they're always refering to what the government could do. they ALWAYS want the government to interfere and run the economy. a government can NOT run the economy it can ony ensure MINIMAL common sense safety standards, prevent, fraud and enforce contracts, etc.
you can't run supply and demand.
dab0331 7 months ago