Refuting 20 Capitalist Myths (1 of 2)

Video showing ppl who don't want to work for a boss
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWkhlxX3xUs
2nd Part
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdS1lAcDR7E
Questions Part 1:
#1 Isn't capitalism the only alternative to a totalitarian communist tyranny?
#2 But aren't people naturally greedy? without the profit motive, how will people work or be creative?
#3 isn't having to work for a boss in capitalism the same as having to work for a living in nature?
#4 But don't people want bosses?
#5 But didn't capitalist bosses provide you with improvements in standards of living.
#6 But didn't the framework of capitalism allow for the improvements those workers fought for?
#7 But don't political freedoms go in hand with capitalism?
#8 But isn't inequality and poverty in capitalism, especially in places like Bangladesh, Malasya, Burma, Indonesia etc justified because of social mobility?
#9 What's wrong with not controlling your workplace with your fellow workers?
#10 OK, the workers don't control the workplace, but don't they at least control the consumer system?
#11 But what is wrong with capitalist non-labor income?
#12 But some capitalist bosses work hard, don't they?
#13 But without capitalism, won't everyone be able to use my home, bed and my toothbrush?
#14 But isn't capitalism historically just?

Category:

Education

Tags:

• capitalism
• anarchism
• property
• state
• labor

[tph2010]

@MsSexySocialist Yes, you can PM me. Also, about the anarcho-communist model, what defines "need" and how would things beyond "need" be distributed.

[MsSexySocialist]

@tph2010

[continued] . . . defined by use and occupancy; like say, a house, a car, furniture, electronics ect.

What's allocated to people is termed "MOP" (means of production) of which nobody "owns" as such but rather they become long-term trustees of it for their enterprises.

The "who" part of the question might take a little more explaining, so can I PM it to you instead?

3) Yes. Absolutely. In all cases.

[MsSexySocialist]

@tph2010

[continued] . . . support a kind of middle-way where "money" as such would be replaced with a form of electronic credit that would (unlike money) be non-transferable. Meaning it would be more like loyalty points or frequent flyer miles in that when you purchase something, it ceases to exist rather than being transfered to different hands.

2) Just so as not to mix things up, "personal property" in this context means your non-productive individually held land and property . . .

[MsSexySocialist]

@tph2010

The answers to 1. and 2. vary depending on which particular libertarian socialist model you're talking about.

1) Some models (such as Mutualism) support maintaining money and markets in the context of an economy with common ownership and democratic enterprises.

Others such as anarcho-communism support completely abolishing money and distributing all produce according to personal need.

Others still, such as participatory economics and inclusive democracy . . .

[tph2010]

@MsSexySocialist A few more questions. 1.) Under this system, would there be any form of "money" or "currency" at all? 2.) How would the products of the common means of production be distributed to people, thus becoming their personal property? Who/ and how would those decisions be made, and by what mechanism would it be done? 3.) Once something becomes "personal property," its owner will indeed be its owner and have a "right" to keep it, correct?

[MsSexySocialist]

@tph2010

No prob. Anytime.

[tph2010]

@MsSexySocialist ok thank you very much!

[MsSexySocialist]

@tph2010

In a specific instance such as that then it could be seen as justifiable to use some sort of limited force for the purpose of maintaining peace and social cohesion.

But ONLY EVER after all other possible means of conflict resolution have been exhausted.