Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 01:08:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
   Home   Help Search Members Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 71707 times)
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: July 05, 2012, 09:45:47 PM »

Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
Syock
Epic
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2427


Existing Beyond Time


View Profile WWW
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2012, 09:53:34 PM »

Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.


So full of fail.  

You are copying garbage from elsewhere and posting it here.  You have posts all over this forum with incredibly easy things to refute.  I am going to have to just start calling troll and leave it at that.

You don't even respond to the refutations.  You just post more garbage.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 09:55:57 PM by Syock » Logged

MAM
Guest
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2012, 10:00:57 PM »

my arguments against capitalism from debates.org:


1. Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority, leading to the creation of a state.

2. Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the new state, via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods, which would allow it to invest in buying its competition.

3. Private property requires a state to exist.

4. Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to the companies that had come to dominate the economy, and power once given will only grow. This power will then invade mutualist and communist areas because they will be new markets, and the richest and most valuable areas, because they won't be able to sell anymore in the local economies.


If they are from debates.org they aren't your arguments you are merely a parrot, which is apparent by your lack of understanding of said arguments.

Now it's time to refute some more bullshit.

Claim One:
Quote
Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority, leading to the creation of a state.
This a completely unsubstantiated claim. It begins with an unsupported assertion. Futhermore if it is true it is not the only thing that can lead to obedience, some other examples are 1. Threat of violence 2. Voluntary exchange id est I agree to do as you say in exchange for x$/hour. (which isn't blind or forced obedience, which is implied by the argument) I'm sure there are others. The second assertion is a non-sequiter when attached to the first and is also unsubstantiated. It may be possible to create a logical link between the first assertion and the second one but a dependence on authority does not follow from obedient behavior. The third assertion is also a non-sequiter when attached to the second. Here's an example firms are organized in a manner wherein workers answer to supervisors who answer to department heads who answer store heads who answer to regional managers etc... Each level is dependent on the authority of the one above it, this is called a chain of command, however a firm is not the State, if one defines the State as a monopoly on coercion. Firms do not have the power to exercise coercion on their employees (they can fire an employ, but is this coercion? No it isn't, if you want to know why I will explain it to you) it is true that a firm can pay the State for coercive favors, but it is the State that exercises that power.

Claim Two:
Quote
Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the new state, via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods, which would allow it to invest in buying its competition.

The first part of this claim is yet another unsubstantiated assertion, it is true that the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few now. But that is not due to some law of economics, it is due to the State manipulating the economy in various ways (creating high barriers to entry, theft, I'm sure there are others but these are the two that come to mind immediately) the second assertion is yet another non-sequiter, even if the first assertion is true, wealth does not the State make,
Quote
via private property. because consumers, who are unorganized, would go to one company that can provide better goods
the claim that consumers are unorganized is false, boycotts have happened before, and so have strikes that lack the support of unions (granted strikes are based on labor, I added that one to demonstrate that workers have options) I have witnessed both with my own eyes. But even if we allow for the assumption that consumers are unorganized, the argument assumes that a company will be able to corner a market and keep it cornered, which has never happened, and I doubt it ever will. An example, Standard Oil one of the most hated "monopolies" in existed never controlled the entire market, and was well on it's way to being dismantled by the competition when anti-trust laws broke it up.

Claim Three:
Quote
Private property requires a state to exist.

You have posted this repeatedly on multiple threads. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Which until you provide further argument for can neither be refuted or proven. Because of this lack of proof whether logical or empirical it should simply not be believed.

Claim Four:
Quote
Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to the companies that had come to dominate the economy, and power once given will only grow. This power will then invade mutualist and communist areas because they will be new markets, and the richest and most valuable areas, because they won't be able to sell anymore in the local economies.

The only part of this argument that holds any truth is
Quote
and power once given will only grow
The rest of it follows similar format to the above id est unsubstantiated claim followed by non-sequiter. Furthermore the argument fails Occam's Razor (at best, and is probably just false) in that it supposes that communist areas (I know very little of mutalism) will some how contain wealth, which all empirical data in existence shows is bullshit, tell me is Korea wealthy? Were the Soviets?

In summation: Go ahead and add these arguments to that box of FAIL you are creating.

PS: It is fairly obvious to me that you copied and pasted these arguments because regardless of their logical consistency they are at least coherent sentences.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2012, 10:59:15 PM »

My dad has to get up at six every morning, go to work at a job he hates, and then bring his work home, its just like school, which is training for the workplace.

for production of goods: we currently have the technology to make all manual labor robotic, allowing people to move on to socially beneficial activities. Do you know how much labor is wasted on food production that could be used to write novels.

Humans are shaped by our material conditions, meaning that if you change material conditions you change humanity, a communist revolution would actually be the creation of communist society in the shell of capitalism. For example mutual aid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_aid_(organization_theory)

grub dinners:

http://www.inourheartsnyc.org/grub-community-dinners/

food not bombs

http://www.foodnotbombs.net/

solidarity networks in greece:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO4RXG3SgtU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO4RXG3SgtU</a>

and the zappatista:

http://libcom.org/history/1994-the-zapatista-uprising

Marinaleda, Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain
« Last Edit: July 05, 2012, 11:00:58 PM by assasin7 » Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
MAM
Guest
« Reply #109 on: July 05, 2012, 11:03:58 PM »

Here's how it will go:
why monopolies form:

1. it is easier and cheaper for shippers to ship to one store than to 3

2. labors demands for higher wages are easier rebuffed by one large company than many small ones.

3. consumers will buy from one company or a group of companies that offer lower prices.

4. larger companies will be the most efficient because they will be able to call on more resources, allowing them to grow larger.

5. their is resources so one company will seize a large part of them, and then grow more. capitalism requires scarcity.

the internet is the only place where anarcho capitalism can work, because you can just open a new website.


It is a sign of my weakness that I still bother to post refutations to your nonsense, but I can't help myself because they are pathetic.

1. What you are implying is wrong. If you make a profit on everything you ship than shipping more shit does what? Increases profit. The costs may increase but so does the profit. If one is losing money on each shipment one goes out of business the number of stores one ships to may increase the rate of decay but the result is the same.

2. So what?

3. So the companies compete to get the consumers lowering their prices.

4. You need a dictionary.

5. Scarcity is a fact of reality. (you didn't even bother to copy this one correctly if you are going to troll can you at least do a good job?)
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #110 on: July 05, 2012, 11:12:41 PM »

I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
MAM
Guest
« Reply #111 on: July 05, 2012, 11:27:20 PM »

I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

If you want to work for someone then you have to accept their leadership that is part of the deal, you are selling your labor. That's what happens. That doesn't mean that employment leads to Statism.

First you were arguing that Capitalism was unsustainable because of automation now you are saying that communism is more sustainable because of automation, so which is it, are economic systems more or less sustainable do to automation. On top of that why are you so convinced that automation won't occur in a Capitalist economy? If the market supports it, it will happen.

Logged
Josh D
Full Member
***
Posts: 153



View Profile WWW
« Reply #112 on: July 16, 2012, 10:23:59 AM »

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

WRONG!

Working for a boss allows you to duck responsibility!  (I was only following orders.)
Logged
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #113 on: July 16, 2012, 11:19:01 AM »

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.
Logged
Script
Full Member
***
Posts: 249


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: July 17, 2012, 02:50:55 AM »

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.

^^  This.
Logged
JustSayNoToStatism
Daily Anarchist Crew
Hero Member
****
*****
Posts: 1747


View Profile
« Reply #115 on: September 28, 2012, 03:21:56 PM »

2. Sorry I took so long to reply but my computer was screwing up and I had to figure out what the problem was and fix it. I'll definitely read your reply, consider it and offer a reply. That might take a while while I mull over what you said.
I'm curious about what you've concluded so far, unless of course you're still actively mulling.
Logged

"I like to eat. Instead of a monarch I propose we have a Chef be final arbiter in matters. We'll call it anarcho-chefism."
-MAM
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: September 28, 2012, 03:37:28 PM »

I'm not copying, thats my account on debates.org, I'm lowering my argument to 2 things:

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

If you want to work for someone then you have to accept their leadership that is part of the deal, you are selling your labor. That's what happens. That doesn't mean that employment leads to Statism.

First you were arguing that Capitalism was unsustainable because of automation now you are saying that communism is more sustainable because of automation, so which is it, are economic systems more or less sustainable do to automation. On top of that why are you so convinced that automation won't occur in a Capitalist economy? If the market supports it, it will happen.



Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want. Under capitalism automation means no one can by shit.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: September 28, 2012, 03:39:21 PM »

working for a boss makes you accept leadership

Can you cite any actual study to back this up?

Quote
communism can produce better than capitalism, because it can give all basic functions to machines, allowing people to do science, art, and such

Logically proven false in 1921, see "Economic Calculation In The Socialist Commonwealth". Empirically proven false by the fall of Socialist/Communist France, Russia, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc etc etc etc.

study: every study of public education on this. It was found that pre school kids were less likely to be affected by the Milgram experiment
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #118 on: September 28, 2012, 04:02:24 PM »

Under communism you don't have people buying things just getting what they need/want. Under capitalism automation means no one can by shit.
Is this some kind of joke? Surely, this is not a serious argument.

 Tongue

Okay, I'll tackle them, anyway.  Under communism, who is producing what people need and want?  How do they know what they need and want?  How do they know how much of these goods people need and want?  How do they know where the goods that people need and want should be sent?  And, finally, but most importantly, how do you resolve conflicts over resources, as there must inevitably be?  The same set of resources can be utilized in multiple ways to provide different configurations of goods and services, and you can't assert that communism "just works" without showing some kind of model or explanation of just how it works.  I'm only asking for one possible way for it to work, and will grant that in reality, it might end up working a different way. 

Unless you're talking about sentient, self-servicing and self-maintaing robots or a similar form of automation, then somebody needs to be watching the automata and make sure they're working properly, and somebody has to maintain and repair them.  So automation itself creates some new jobs. 

Admittedly, the automation does mean fewer employees in that particular field, but a company wouldn't automate if it didn't translate into increased productivity.  Increased productivity means lower costs, and thus lower prices for consumers, and/or higher profits for the company, and usually both will occur.  In either case, it means that there's more money to be spent in other sectors of the economy, i.e. increased demand in those sectors, which means more jobs created in those sectors. 

Thus, while some jobs are lost, there are more net jobs after automation than before.  That means more people employed, not less.  Stop me if I'm going too fast for you.

Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
Kinglord of Castle Manufactoria
Newbie
*
Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #119 on: September 28, 2012, 05:01:20 PM »

I think I've learned one thing from this entire thread.

Ancoms aren't worth converting.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 14
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!