Daily Anarchist Forum
November 27, 2021, 01:28:40 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 ... 12 13 [14]
  Print  
Author Topic: Converting an anarcho-communist  (Read 71728 times)
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #195 on: October 17, 2012, 01:56:43 PM »

1. thats a semantics game, you know what I meant

2. theirs a difference between seniority and hierarchy, a boss worker relationship is hierarchy, a mentor student relationship is seniority

3. Yes, but only one person in the contract is homeless if they don't agree, and the bank has the ability to go to another person and get a worse contract, the person can't do that.

4. Private property is something you own but don't use (rented land, capitalist business)

5. Their wouldn't be supply contracts, all stakeholders (workers, recepiants of the goods it makes) in the factory would have a direct say in how it was run. Management tries to maximize profits, and control the work force.

6. why not? the state was the only capitalist.

7. I've met and worked with Trots, they aren't so bad. Its Trotskytes that are bad, I don't know the difference but its huge

8. Can you give me evidence besides libertarian articles.
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #196 on: October 17, 2012, 02:55:44 PM »

1. thats a semantics game, you know what I meant

No, actually I don't know. That's the problem, the definitions are different. Without those specific semantics, we cannot know what it is either of us is saying.

Quote
2. theirs a difference between seniority and hierarchy, a boss worker relationship is hierarchy, a mentor student relationship is seniority

No. This is where the left-anarchist makes the error. A employer-employee relationship is just as much a seniority relationship as anything else. It's a voluntary agreement by the employee to perform the work as directed by the employer, or to use their judgement to do the work better and correct the employer. If EITHER PARTY is dissatisfied, they dissolve the contract.

Quote
3. Yes, but only one person in the contract is homeless if they don't agree, and the bank has the ability to go to another person and get a worse contract, the person can't do that.

You forget again that the bank has to find willing borrowers exactly the same way the borrower must find a willing bank. It is a reciprocal relationship, both can say "no" at any time.

Quote
4. Private property is something you own but don't use (rented land, capitalist business)

This is just the semantics game again. Private property is everything. The mind, the body, the labor, the money. Are you going to say that money I put in the bank, since I'm not actively using it, is no longer my property? Money in the bank is exactly the same as a rental property. Someone else, using my property under contract, for a fee.

Quote
5. Their wouldn't be supply contracts, all stakeholders (workers, recepiants of the goods it makes) in the factory would have a direct say in how it was run. Management tries to maximize profits, and control the work force.

So your factory would have no raw materials, no replacement parts, and no markets. Your factory would fail.

This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union when Lenin tried to abolish private property and money entirely: The people starved.

Quote
6. why not? the state was the only capitalist.

This is too short for me to understand to what you are referring.

Quote
8. Can you give me evidence besides libertarian articles.

Again, I cannot be sure to what you are replying. What evidence do you need of the benefits to the poor of a society that recognizes and defends private property, than the differences in wealth everywhere in the world between the "poor"?

The "poor" in the US have color TVs and $100 shoes. The "poor" in places like Zimbabwe, India, or China before they abandoned the very policies you advocate, the "poor" starved.

This is not a "libertarian article", this is simple fact. If you can show me anywhere, at any time, that abandoned private property and became wealthy, then do so.
Logged
assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: October 17, 2012, 06:27:44 PM »

1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.

4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.
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 #198 on: October 17, 2012, 06:37:11 PM »

1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement
A contract is any agreement between two parties, regardless of its term or if they signed a paper.
Quote

3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.
Not really--the bank has competition, too, and contractual obligations, and other problems.  And not all borrowers are as desperate as you make them out to be.  Donald Trump, for example, has engaged in some hefty, large-scale borrowing of money, and I don't think he's too worried about waiting out the banks and not paying them back.
Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.
And you have no idea how terrible this would work.
Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.
First of all, yes, the structure of the internet was developed by the military, but much of what we enjoy on the internet, graphics, sound, video, and numerous commercial and non-commercial websites like Google, Wikipedia, Amazon, E-Bay, Pay-Pal, and others (like this forum) were clearly not developed by the military. 

Furthermore, given the establishment of the internet, the private sector has not stopped developing and improving on it, and government or military support is no longer necessary to maintain the internet.

Second, as I mentioned in another thread, big corps and other large business sectors surely take advantage of the power of government to enrich themselves, including through the government protection of copyrights and patents.  Without government, corps and big businesses would once again be entirely at the mercy of consumers, and thus could only make profits by satisfying the needs and desires of the consumers.
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #199 on: October 18, 2012, 09:11:22 AM »

1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

False. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. That's all.

Quote
2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

The employer cannot fulfill his contracts if workers don't show up. They call in sick, they leave early because their child has an ear-ache, they quit without warning. That's why more productive workers get paid more, to keep them from being hired away by the competition.

Without labor, nothing gets done. Without management, there is nothing to do. Both roles MUST be filled. To denigrate either role is to demonstrate massive ignorance.

Quote
3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.

Wrong again. How is the bank going to pay its own mortgage unless it is making loans? How is the bank to pay interest on savings deposited unless it has income from making loans?

The bank is a business just like any other. It must serve its customers or it will fail.

Quote
4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

This makes no sense. A bank is a firm. When you enter into a contract with the firm, you're still bound to that contract.

Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

Why?

Why would I give my raw materials to anyone?

Quote
6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

Yep. That's exactly what a command economy has to do in order to get anything done. That's because the answer to my question in response to your #5 is, "Because someone will shoot me if I don't."

In a market, the answer to #5 is, "because that's how I make a living."

Maybe you've never heard about the "disutility of labor". This is something Marx never could grasp either.

People do not WANT to work. There must be an incentive to get any work done at all. That's why productive people are paid more, to give them an incentive to do the work.

Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html

And pharmaceuticals? With the exception maybe of banking, there is no industry more in bed with their regulators, dependent upon the government monopoly grants of patent and copyright, than the drug companies. To equate what is today the drug industry with "private sector tech" is to grossly misunderstand the word "private".

Remember those "semantic games"? When you cannot use the same words the same way, communication becomes impossible.
Logged
macsnafu
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 422


Situation Normal--all fouled up!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #200 on: October 18, 2012, 11:14:44 AM »


7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html
Nice post you linked to.  As I said, the government/military didn't create the Internet that we know and use every day--the private sector did, and how!
Logged

"I love mankind.  It's people I can't stand!"
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #201 on: October 18, 2012, 12:03:04 PM »

Quote

Nice post you linked to.  As I said, the government/military didn't create the Internet that we know and use every day--the private sector did, and how!

Thank you. It was a lot of fun to write, too.  Grin
Logged
AgoristTeen1994
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 590


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: October 18, 2012, 12:24:59 PM »

^Thank you, _______. I read that last statement and thought, "Wait a minute. Does he realize that he's advocating a branch of neocon philosophy?"

You are very welcome SinCityVoluntaryist....though I would prefer you don't refer to me by my name here (Just AgoristTeen or some variation of that) since while I'm probably already on several .gov goon lists, I don't want to end up on any more
« Last Edit: October 26, 2012, 02:49:35 PM by JustSayNoToStatism » Logged

assasin7
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 516


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: October 19, 2012, 04:29:10 PM »

1. a contract involves signing a paper and long term agreement

False. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. That's all.


Quote
OK a long term contract, such as a mortgage or employment plan
Quote
2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

Quote
The employer cannot fulfill his contracts if workers don't show up. They call in sick, they leave early because their child has an ear-ache, they quit without warning. That's why more productive workers get paid more, to keep them from being hired away by the competition.
Quote
Your ignoring the reserve army of labor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour: the Welfare State exists to keep them alive.
Quote
Without labor, nothing gets done. Without management, there is nothing to do. Both roles MUST be filled. To denigrate either role is to demonstrate massive ignorance.
Quote
I'm not disputing this, I'm saying that labor makes the best management for several reasons:

1. people work best when they have a feeling of loyalty/community to the work they are doing

2. people work best with higher job security

3. people work best when they have a say in what they do

4. people work best when they are receiving lots of what they produce

5. people work best when they understand what they are doing and why

6. workers interests conflict with management's interests, say when a new innovation replaces a worker, under capitalism that means losing your job, under communism that means an easier work load and more wealth for the worker.

7. Managment might what to spend lots of money impressing the boss, workers self management would mean that the boss wants to impress the workers, as he was elected by them and can be fired at any time by them
Quote
3. the Bank has all the time in the world, the borrowers don't have any.
Wrong again. How is the bank going to pay its own mortgage unless it is making loans? How is the bank to pay interest on savings deposited unless it has income from making loans?

The bank is a business just like any other. It must serve its customers or it will fail.

Quote
4. A bank doesn't have the same rights as a person, also if you gave it to another person hes not in the position of paying you for his home.

This makes no sense. A bank is a firm. When you enter into a contract with the firm, you're still bound to that contract.
Yes but when you put money in the bank your giving a non entity with greater power than you your money, if I give my friend Eliza 20 dollars to hold for me that's a completely different deal
Quote
5. The factory would be supplied the raw materials by other collectives or communes that make those things, they would have a say in how the factory was run and vise versa, the factory would give away goods to all people in the area it lived in. their might be free trade of goods and services but no market.

Why?

Why would I give my raw materials to anyone?
I'm fine with people living out side of communism, I'm not sure if I'm still a communist myself, I have a problem when they try to force their system of property on the planet which will result in violence (see Europe at the birth of capitalism, when the military was sent onto common land to massacre peasants who had no title to the land but had used it for centuries)
Quote
6. In the Soviet Union the State invested money in projects that the working class had to make without owning the tools they were using.

Yep. That's exactly what a command economy has to do in order to get anything done. That's because the answer to my question in response to your #5 is, "Because someone will shoot me if I don't."

In a market, the answer to #5 is, "because that's how I make a living."

Maybe you've never heard about the "disutility of labor". This is something Marx never could grasp either.

People do not WANT to work. There must be an incentive to get any work done at all. That's why productive people are paid more, to give them an incentive to do the work.
Quote

The working class was created by the destruction of the peasants communal land, which forced them to the cities to sell their labor to the new industrial capitalists, while agro capitalists used new technology to farm huge swaths of land, or had tenants make themselves debt slaves to them.

Quote
7. The internet was made by the military, these operate without the profit motive, private sector tech is shifting one molecule on a drug so you can sell it as a generic pill.

That's exactly opposite of reality.

The "Internet" existed as a research project between universities and institutions for 20 years, a playground of DOE contractors, yes, but nothing more.

Then in 1993 the government GOT OUT of the "Internet". The restrictions against private and commercial use were abolished, regulation was dropped, and it was thrown open to private operators to sink or swim.

Within 2 years, one tenth the time it had already existed, the people who cooperate together to create the "Internet" had built it to something you would recognize today.

You weren't there. I was.

http://anarchic-order.blogspot.com/2011/02/when-net-was-young.html

And pharmaceuticals? With the exception maybe of banking, there is no industry more in bed with their regulators, dependent upon the government monopoly grants of patent and copyright, than the drug companies. To equate what is today the drug industry with "private sector tech" is to grossly misunderstand the word "private".

Remember those "semantic games"? When you cannot use the same words the same way, communication becomes impossible.

I concede this point
Logged

"owning a fire arm, that's a hanging offense"
"then go hang yourself"
BobRobertson
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 495



View Profile
« Reply #204 on: October 22, 2012, 08:33:31 AM »

2. Yes but if the employee quits he has to listen to his starving kids while he job hunts. Your idea only works if as soon as you quit a magical genii shows up and gives you another job.

My idea works every day, all the time. Management and labor are NOT IN CONFLICT.

So long as you continue to act as if they are, you and I cannot make progress.

Quote
Your ignoring the reserve army of labor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour: the Welfare State exists to keep them alive.

Irrelevant. Since welfare is a creation of the state, abolish it.

Quote
I'm not disputing this, I'm saying that labor makes the best management for several reasons:

False again. Labor and Management are roles, not individuals. If someone is better at labor than management, then they will labor. If someone is better at management than labor, then they will manage.

Quote
6. workers interests conflict with management's interests, say when a new innovation replaces a worker, under capitalism that means losing your job, under communism that means an easier work load and more wealth for the worker.

False again. If the company does not make money, everyone is out of work. The false conflict, created and fostered by labor unions to justify their existence, must be recognized for what it is.

Quote
Yes but when you put money in the bank your giving a non entity with greater power than you your money, if I give my friend Eliza 20 dollars to hold for me that's a completely different deal

Why are you complaining to me about this? If you don't want to use a bank, then don't.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [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!