As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?
Remember those "few abortive exceptions"? Yeah, those.
Topic: Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes) - page 24. (Read 12643 times)
May 21, 2013, 11:17:19 AM
May 21, 2013, 11:13:00 AM
This conversation is getting sidetracked by a meaningless detail. Money can certainly be defined in many ways, but the bottom line is most people want it so they can do things they want to do and live a nicer life. Now let's get back to the main topic, which is capitalism.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
Since this vague term capitalism is a degenerative condition, something mankind succumbs to when guided by nothing but "invisible hand" [translation: Naked greed], it's been a default condition throughout history. There were a few abortive exceptions. Count them on one hand. In other words, yes, you're right. Capitalism, being the only player, is the star.
Not at all, i'm using degenerative in its vulgar sense, as in nature tends towards entropy & mankind tends towards capitalism. Neither good nor bad, just descriptive.
edit: As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?
Remember those "few abortive exceptions"? Yeah, those.Well, two problems with using those as examples -- the obvious being "abortive." The other problem's equally obvious to me, though perhaps not to you: Life had to suck really bad for people to take up arms.
May 21, 2013, 10:58:58 AM
This conversation is getting sidetracked by a meaningless detail. Money can certainly be defined in many ways, but the bottom line is most people want it so they can do things they want to do and live a nicer life. Now let's get back to the main topic, which is capitalism.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
Since this vague term capitalism is a degenerative condition, something mankind succumbs to when guided by nothing but "invisible hand" [translation: Naked greed], it's been a default condition throughout history. There were a few abortive exceptions. Count them on one hand. In other words, yes, you're right. Capitalism, being the only player, is the star.
edit: As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?
Remember those "few abortive exceptions"? Yeah, those. May 21, 2013, 10:54:45 AM
This conversation is getting sidetracked by a meaningless detail. Money can certainly be defined in many ways, but the bottom line is most people want it so they can do things they want to do and live a nicer life. Now let's get back to the main topic, which is capitalism.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
Since this vague term capitalism is a degenerative condition, something mankind succumbs to when guided by nothing but "invisible hand" [translation: Naked greed], it's been a default condition throughout history. There were a few abortive exceptions. Count them on one hand. In other words, yes, you're right. Capitalism, being the only player, is the star.
edit: As far as socialism & communism bringing about awful living conditions: What are you basing this on?
May 21, 2013, 10:39:47 AM
This conversation is getting sidetracked by a meaningless detail. Money can certainly be defined in many ways, but the bottom line is most people want it so they can do things they want to do and live a nicer life. Now let's get back to the main topic, which is capitalism.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
I still hold the position, that from all the ideologies tested during world history, free market capitalism has brought the most welfare and innovations to the world while socialism and communism have usually created pretty awful living conditions.
May 21, 2013, 10:39:11 AM
Are you no longer hungry or thirsty? Your life has been improved.
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
Just because your "Life is improved slightly" does NOT make your LIVING condition go up.
Wasn't it you who suggested starting a window garden if all else fails? Should i find your post?
Just being an asshat then. OK. May 21, 2013, 10:33:51 AM
Are you no longer hungry or thirsty? Your life has been improved.
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
Just because your "Life is improved slightly" does NOT make your LIVING condition go up.
Your living condition refers to the place you live, and how "nice" it is kept.
Ex: Switching from a hospital bed, to a tempurpedic is changing your "living condition".
Filling your car or getting a sandwich are examples of a current increase in STANDARD OF LIVING, (same goes for smoking weed, and it just means it makes you feel better about your situation, it doesn't ACTUALLY help your housing/life situation.). It is NOT related to your "living condition".
Though "standard of living" is fairly loosely defined, it's focused on measurable wealth, not converting wealth that's in your pocket into wealth in your gas tank. Everything you've listed doesn't improve your standard of living (unless you're stealing the gas, sandwiches & robbing your pot dealer).
May 21, 2013, 10:22:57 AM
Are you no longer hungry or thirsty? Your life has been improved.
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
Just because your "Life is improved slightly" does NOT make your LIVING condition go up.
Your living condition refers to the place you live, and how "nice" it is kept.
Ex: Switching from a hospital bed, to a tempurpedic is changing your "living condition".
Filling your car or getting a sandwich are examples of a current increase in STANDARD OF LIVING, (same goes for smoking weed, and it just means it makes you feel better about your situation, it doesn't ACTUALLY help your housing/life situation.). It is NOT related to your "living condition".
May 21, 2013, 10:14:41 AM
...
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
He's using castor oil, from organically grown, non-genetically modified castor beans grown in his window garden. He took a lesson from you
huh?
Wasn't it you who suggested starting a window garden if all else fails? Should i find your post?
May 21, 2013, 10:13:36 AM
...
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
He's using castor oil, from organically grown, non-genetically modified castor beans grown in his window garden. He took a lesson from you
May 21, 2013, 10:09:22 AM
...
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
He's using castor oil, from organically grown, non-genetically modified castor beans grown in his window garden. He took a lesson from you
edit: After the oil change, he tosses the drain oil into a blender with some draino & makes eco-friendly organic diesel, which he uses for fuel. This provides free fuel & the scheme can be repeated indefinitely -- free energy!
May 21, 2013, 09:58:45 AM
I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.
Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods.Just because you get a meal or water, does not mean you are in better living conditions.
Just because you get an oil change, doesn't mean you are living more lavishly
If you skip the oil change and your car breaks down, your life sucks. The oil change improves your life (or, rather, prevents a reduction in your living conditions).
May 21, 2013, 09:52:29 AM
ktttn = Squeaky strawman, commissioned by Moneyed Moms for their teething sons: A fun, safe, and engaging chew toy for budding neocons .
@everyone debating him: You've been trolled. Ktttn®, also marketed as My First Anarchist®, is a product of BiteMarx, inc.
May 21, 2013, 09:48:02 AM
I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.
Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods.
Just because you get a meal or water, does not mean you are in better living conditions.
Just because you get an oil change, doesn't mean you are living more lavishly
Same thing goes for getting a drivers license.
Now,
Buying a CAR could increase your living conditions.
Or hiring a maid.
But not all goods and services improve living conditions.
May 21, 2013, 09:40:29 AM
I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.
Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods.
May 21, 2013, 06:31:01 AM
Quote
I consider it unethical to pay for food.
Good luck with that. I'd tend to agree with him on that single point. If you value something low enough to throw it into the trash, you forego your ownership of it. If someone else sees value in the same item, it should be up for grabs. That way low-value items can be recycled into the economy.
This does offc imply that the collector of the item does not mess up the place or makes a disturbance, and the person who throws away trash also has the right to lock the dumpster by his/her personal reasons.
May 21, 2013, 05:02:27 AM
How high up should the free standard of living be? Water as long as nestle doesn't copyright it... Food? I personally think so.
Utilities? Internet access? Medical care? You don't need state communism to make those free, just open sourcing.
These are NOT free things. Someone has to produce them. So if we reduce (for simplicitys sake) the community to just you and me, you seem to expect that I should just provide you all those services free of cost.
Here's the thing really: being alive means working and nobody, let me repeat, nobody owns You anything. You are responsible for your own well-being. Not me, not your neighbor, not anyone else but You.
Don't like working? Fine by me, but don't expect me to give you the fruits of my work. Hate being an employee? Don't be one. You have the choice.
May 21, 2013, 04:53:51 AM
People should farm.
I agree. But let the people who are superb at farming do the farming. And let others create what they are best at creating. That is a win/win situation for everyone. Do you think everyone should farm? What if I don't like farming and would rather work for my boss so that I don't have to farm? Is my boss doing something bad by providing me with that option?
When people mass abandoned farms, a lot of harm was done. A lot of good may have come, but folks becoming dependent on an employer wasnt one of those goods. Valuation of work cannot be standardized.
I do labor, which results in me having food. It isn't an exchange, though. It's the gift economy combined with cleverness and reciprocity on my part that feeds me
I do labor, which results in me having food. It isn't an exchange, though. It's the gift economy combined with cleverness and reciprocity on my part that feeds me
The nature of reality is that you ARE depending on food and shelter. Either you get those by creating them yourself or you create something different and exchange that for those things. Or you choose to work for someone else to get those things. We are always dependent on working because of our biology and the world we live in. It's your own choice that you can either work for yourself or for an employee. It's good to have that choice. Not everyone likes the responsibility of working for yourself. Those people are happy to have jobs.
A boss might be someone who guides you in fufilling your potential, rewards you for personal growth and is supportive of your needs. This is a far cry from the common boss, who one feels obliged to for a slip that you divide to analogous entities that allow you to have lights and a phone or pay taxes and buy mostly useless crap or nutrient vacant stomachstuffings.
How high up should the free standard of living be? Air, certainly. Love, hopefully. Water as long as nestle doesn't copyright it... Food? I personally think so.
Utilities? Internet access? Medical care? You don't need state communism to make those free, just open sourcing.
Then why use money at all? Perhaps specialty luxury items, art, personal favors, encouragement of persuing goals...
If we all agree to transition to a free/gift economy, an intermediary is neccessary between the clusterfuck that is capitalism and my microbrand of anarchism. The one made up for this comtext, that is.
Even after the transition, value abstracted still has use.
May 21, 2013, 03:35:41 AM
People should farm.
I agree. But let the people who are superb at farming do the farming. And let others create what they are best at creating. That is a win/win situation for everyone. Do you think everyone should farm? What if I don't like farming and would rather work for my boss so that I don't have to farm? Is my boss doing something bad by providing me with that option?
When people mass abandoned farms, a lot of harm was done. A lot of good may have come, but folks becoming dependent on an employer wasnt one of those goods. Valuation of work cannot be standardized.
I do labor, which results in me having food. It isn't an exchange, though. It's the gift economy combined with cleverness and reciprocity on my part that feeds me
I do labor, which results in me having food. It isn't an exchange, though. It's the gift economy combined with cleverness and reciprocity on my part that feeds me
The nature of reality is that you ARE depending on food and shelter. Either you get those by creating them yourself or you create something different and exchange that for those things. Or you choose to work for someone else to get those things. We are always dependent on working because of our biology and the world we live in. It's your own choice that you can either work for yourself or for an employee. It's good to have that choice. Not everyone likes the responsibility of working for yourself. Those people are happy to have jobs.
May 21, 2013, 03:10:12 AM
A systemic alternative to that coersive option already exists but under capitalist influence is considered as resistence. There is no material need for wage slaves.
When society is set up to fuck anyone whose will is not profitable, we need to all seriously rethink that setup.
How is offering people the option of labor in your company instead of farming coercive in any way? Would the people be better off without that option then? If that option is so evil, why did people choose to leave the farms and get jobs in cities?
The society is simply you and me multiplied. If I work hard and you just chill out, then I don't want to give you the fruits of my labor. If we both work hard, then I might be interested in exchanging the fruit of my labor to the fruit of your labor. To do so in a large society, we use money. But the basic principle stays the same. I want something in return for my hard work.
Mutual Aid is an idea put forth bu Kropotkin as a factor in evolution.
Yes. Skill talent and generosity will always be fairly rewarded when its not illegal not to.
I have touched cash once in the last four years. I am really not lying.
You might not be lying, but you went around my question. Are you never paying anything for your food? If you are paying (either with money or labor), then you have to agree food is not free.
I do labor, which results in me having food. It isn't an exchange, though. It's the gift economy combined with cleverness and reciprocity on my part that feeds me
Jump to: