Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working? - page 2. (Read 17188 times)

Every job I've had has taught me something.
The learning is the responsibility of the learner.
The aware awaken, the sleepers slumber.

The point being, when we lose the difference between the aware and the sleepers, society loses.
That difference, often, is pay.

Payment is a signal.  It is information.  When we lose information we lose something of value.  a society that willfully destroys that, is not going to be at an advantage to one that retains it unless there is something of greater worth to replace it.  Present that counterbalancing social benefit and I will convert.

The nouns.

Is this supposed to be a subliminal message?  It's not the message I was getting from the arguments.

I planted some garlic I got for free on land that I live on for free earler today. It made me feel really good about myself.
"We must cultivate our land" - Voltaire

Farming sucks.  I'd rather pay a guy to do it for me.

Captaining, not remotely owning for profit.
If you don't think people can be perfectly happy planting their own food, your prorities are screwed.

Still tweaking our premise...
'Consenting' to toil for a capitalist has never been free of coersion. One can be practically owned without one's consent.
The sum of genetics, technology and philosophy does not come into existence in a single person's bubble. Your predecessors gave you that. You don't need nationalism to recognize your debt to the whole of humanity.


"Simply because the alternative is hunger"?
Srsly?
You don't believe that everyone is a snowflake with her own ability to contribute to humankind without dying in a Nike manufacturing plant?

Interns generally don't even get the fish for a day, the daily pay of the unskilled cabin boy is a better deal for the cabin boy.  Your priorities are screwed.

I know how, and my children will know also; but subsistance farming isn't a preferable lifestyle to most.  Specialization is for insects, but free trade always improves the lifestyles of those who freely engage in it.  And yes, I can prove that.

http://desertislandgame.com/


Capitalist pig!

Form a premise that we can agree upon, and then try to build up from that logical beginning.  For example, you have already conceded that you own yourself, and that I own myself.  That's a premise. 

And based upon that premise; that I own myself, then no one else can own me without my consent.  How exactly, did I come to owe anything?  Did I consent to some great 'social contract'?  If you're going to say that I owe because I was born, when did I agree to that?  Even communist societies raise children for the benefit of the communist society, not for the children.  How do the children born in China under Mao owe Mao, or even China, anything?


Don't you wonder how I knew that?


What is there to elaborate?  Those words are opposites, and they are absolutes.  There can be no middle ground; literally speaking.  If you are working for someone, either you agreed to the terms in order to improve your own conditions, or you were forced into servitude against your own will.  Being 'forced' to work for a living simply because the alternative is hunger is not involuntary; society does not owe you a living, much less a comfortable one.

In jobs that can teach you something, you might as well be an intern.
The civil agreement put forth by employers is the only option for toilers unless you can figure out how to thrive outside of it (which we should).
I don't consider the fishermen slaves. That's a fantastic example of how mutual aid works. Captaining a ship with a crew is a-ok by me, yo.

You owe society everything.

In exactly what format would you like an argument for this statement?
I'd be very happy to oblige your criteria for what constitutes an argument, since it seems that our disagreement hinges on this.


I'm not gonna try to engage you further in this meta discussion.
I dropped out of Memphis College of Art in '08 because I wasted all my money on cigarettes and I wanted to persue a career in smashing the state, boycotting the Fed, and doing drugs. I can assassinate my character better than you can, I promise.

Here's a good point. Elaborate plz? How does the obsolescence of banks and reliance on working for a boss factor into this?

EDIT:  Pop Quiz!  What is the capital in this context?

So much win.

Pay is to coercion as exoneration is to execution.  This does not in any way suggest that pay is equal to exoneration.
Pay is merely a civil agreement to perform for compensation so no it does not let you all the way out of state control, this is not its promises.
However it very well may put you all the way out of any particular capitalist's control, if by control you really mean enticement.


Taking the example of the fisherman.  I had a tenant that would fish in Alaska during the season, so I know just a little about it.  I do know he would work dangerous and difficult 18 hour shifts for weeks at a time with no break.  All the fishermen would get a share of what the boat catches and they pressure each other to be excellent, and the boat captain and owner gets extra for risking their equipment.

After each season he would then take some months to relax, vacation, and enjoy himself in the city of his choice around the world until he ran out of money.  Then he would go back and fish again.
He is a good fisherman.  Some of his friends worked several seasons in a row and together bought a boat.  He now works for them.
All of those people have choice and voluntarily made that life for themselves.  They are friends, and each are happy, though they are no longer all on the same side of the employee/employer relationship.
None of them consider themselves slaves, even if you might.

More nonsense.  Pay is giving the cabin boy a fish out of the day's catch, he learns to fish by observation and participation in the trade of the fisherman.  His increases in the skill of the trade increase his value to the captain of the boat, and also his pay.  Eventually his wages exceed his need, and he can save up to buy his own boat from the boatmaker; or simply convince the boatmaker of his creditworthiness based upon his reputation as an experienced fisherman and crewman, in which case the boatmaker secures an ongoing source for fish for his own family's table.  Every step without coercion.  Employing an unskilled laborer is both giving him a fish for a day's work, and teaching him to fish.

I owe society nothing, but nor does it owe me anything.  Specificly, I don't owe the society that I was born into any loyalty, although I might choose to grant same for some time in exchange for ongoing consideration.  Likewise, my society does not owe me any support, although support might be provided. 


You have convinced me of nothing, and have yet failed to provide an argument.


My image of your capacity of rational thought is a bit lacking.  I know too little of the rest of you to form an opinion.  I honestly have no opinion upon your values, because I see no evidence that you have formed any of your own; all you do is quote other people's opinions.  That would be like me quoting my pastor in a debate with an atheist, and never so much as mentioning the Bible.  The impressions, opinions or value judgements of others are entirely irrelevant.


And my point is, once again, made for me.  Now you want me to read (again, mind you) the opinions of an ancient socialist, as if I should sudden declare, "Of course!  How could I not have seen it before!"


More word salad.  You are a liberal arts major, aren't you.  That degree is perfect for a career in food service, BTW.

In practice, what you describe is the exception to the rule within a state capitalist framework. Dependency on employers prevents many from ever coming far enough out of debt to do what they want.
I have a hard time with equating pay to exoneration or choice because reliance on any paycheck does not let you all the way out of the state or capitalist's control. Pay is giving a man a fish and assuming he has means to stockpile fish until he can learn to fish.

Replacing pay with coercion is similar to replacing execution with exoneration.  
It changes the meaning to the polar opposite.
One is force, the other is enticement.  One is compulsion the other opportunity and choice.

Consider instead that being an employee is the step after generalized schooling.  
It is that part of your training to be an entrepreneur, where you get paid to learn.
Its like graduate school for those that want to do things rather than research.
Those that graduate and become entrepreneurs can then engage in training their own employees.

So it does, but then we're no longer talking about wage labor.

If you replace "pay" with "coersion" it makes more sense. To own slaves, one needs to compensate them with food and housing, or some kind of "pay" that keeps them alive and one's slave. Pay has evolved in the time since serfs. To call modern wage slaves simply 'slaves' may be a bit of an overstatement, but it still rings true enough to get my point across.
Anyone familiar with sharecroppers?