Anarchists?

TheBrutalTruth said:

People would be forced to work anyway, otherwise they would not eat, as far as your claims that there would be no money. Perhaps you should contemplate just why money would come into being.

First, and of the utmost importance, is the fact that either your system resorts to slavery and enslaves the farmers, or you compensate them for their time. As it does not take a whole lot of people to produce a lot of food then it becomes necessary for other people to find other ways of producing something of value to give in exchange to the farmer.

This might be something as mundane as chopping wood, or as elaborate as making sure that the farmer's books balance. Now, in the case of the first, it might be possible for the forester to state that so many cords of wood are worth a sheep or an oxen, but what if they don't want sheep or oxen, but the farmer still wants the lumber?

The simple solution is for society to develop a method of exchange, in short, money. Now, as the forester doesn't want to be stuck lugging around tons of lumber, it comes around by agreement that they will use something like specially carved woodchips, or gold as currency.

And poof money, an expression of commodities that is used to smooth out irregularities in the markets is born. Instead of having to worry about keeping a sheep or oxen until he is ready to eat it, the forester can hold onto the money that he was given until he wants to buy a sheep or oxen from the farmer, or maybe a cow from a rancher, or another saw from the smith. Thus a commodity (money) becomes adopted as a system of exchange.

Provided that there is no artifical attempts to inflate the quantity of money then the currency that the forester accepted when he sold his lumber to the farmer should retain its value thus assuring the forester that it will hold its value and still be worth a sheep or oxen or two chickens when he goes to spend it.

Money is a necessity to have any kind of functioning society, a barter economy does not have enough liquidity of different commodity types to function with out money. You can't keep half a chicken or a bushel of grain indefinitely, but money (esp. metal) lasts for an indefinite period of time, thus making it the ideal medium of exchange.

Especially when it comes to the accountant mentioned above. How can his time be measured, except in some unit of a commodity (money) that both he and the farmer agree upon? And if he doesn't have a sheep or oxen, what good would it do for him to take another one and then try selling it?

Or perhaps the farmer is still raising new kids to sell off and thus does not want to part with them until they are ready to be butchered?

Once again the liquidity created by currency saves the barter economy from completely collapsing due to non-payment.

Click to expand...

People would only be forced to work for survival which is an integral part of nature, I'm sure you'd agree too that there is no escaping from that. But in capitalism, people are conned into thinking they are working to survive and live but really they are working for the accumulation of capital, they work way more than they need to each day so the capitalists can get rich and then they are refunded for their time with a wage, enough to survive and buy a few things, but most of their labour is stolen and forms profit.

Money is simply the tool that capitalists used to get rich in the first place. They can claim a monopoly on something, say a forest and all its timber and of course society needs timber for constructuion, furniture, everything else, so the capitalists gain economic dominance because they can sell their stolen commodity at whatever price they like. Money is nothing more than alienated dead labour bound up in metal and its just a tool for the capitalists to exploit. Of course there aren't enough commodities in a certain geographical area but the influx of imported goods will rely on the work of other people in another area, and they will work not because they have to but because it benefits them to do so, this is because of indirect reciprocation. If everybody realises we are strongest when we help each other, people won't mind working to help a community they don't live in because they know another community somewhere else will help them out.

magicSpoons said:

Communism implies fighting for freedom, nothing else. I don't know what you think you know about communism but you are clearly wrong.

Click to expand...

You keep stating this.. I think there is some confusion maybe. When most people hear 'communism' they automatically think of Lenin/Stalin, third world, poverty, ect... Because that is the only communism the world has seen.

Communism in the Marxist sence refers to a classless, stateless, oppression free society. Where decisions are made directly and democratically, allowing every member of society in the decision making process. Now, Lenin 'revisioned' Marxism and transformed it into the Communism we all know today.

So when you say 'communism' you throw people off. You would be amazed at the amount of people who have never read Manifesto(had to read for college sociology)or even heard of Karl Marx.

I haven't gone through the whole thread yet, I'm just basing my response on your initial post.

If I understand you correctly, your premise is based on the notion that government is bad and that we should do away with it entirely. Maybe like Somalia, works pretty good there, right?

And if I remember my history lessons correctly, didn’t we try laissez-faire government here in America in the 19th century? How’d that work out? Poisoned food, corruption, shantytowns, racism, monopolies, rampant poverty, pollution, etc.

The answer for this - and the reason most societies eventually form and even want a formal government - is regulation, laws, security, etc. The idea that people can be self-regulatory and work for the good of all in order to maintain their own self interest – as Adam Smith put it: ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest’ - is idealistic at best and far from realistic in a worldwide setting.

And while I don’t fully grasp your notion of communism, I’m guessing it would be externally unregulated and outside any sanctioned market system, basically some form of informal market, like you see in developing countries or even the drug trade. This type of system runs into obvious problems: no protection from courts or police so no contracts/obligations can be enforced, no access to funds to grow (if it’s a legit business), violence and crime run rampant, etc. You assume that in a society where each individual holds equal power there is some practicable way to create power enough to arbitrate disputes and enforce mutually accepted law that is incorruptible. How? And how do you overcome the "prisoner's dilemma"?

I believe you are wrong when you say ‘human beings live best in solidarity’ or individuals prosper all by themselves; they prosper with the support of a government that offers them opportunities, services, security, etc. I’m guessing you’re not bothered by the lack of your theory's real-world success; after all, how do you make things better without change? I’m all for change, but if your government isn’t providing these things the answer is reform, not anarchy.

Dystopia said:

I haven't gone through the whole thread yet, I'm just basing my response on your initial post.

If I understand you correctly, your premise is based on the notion that government is bad and that we should do away with it entirely. Maybe like Somalia, works pretty good there, right?

And if I remember my history lessons correctly, didn’t we try laissez-faire government here in America in the 19th century? How’d that work out? Poisoned food, corruption, shantytowns, racism, monopolies, rampant poverty, pollution, etc.

The answer for this - and the reason most societies eventually form and even want a formal government - is regulation, laws, security, etc. The idea that people can be self-regulatory and work for the good of all in order to maintain their own self interest – as Adam Smith put it: ‘It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest’ - is idealistic at best and far from realistic in a worldwide setting.

And while I don’t fully grasp your notion of communism, I’m guessing it would be externally unregulated and outside any sanctioned market system, basically some form of informal market, like you see in developing countries or even the drug trade. This type of system runs into obvious problems: no protection from courts or police so no contracts/obligations can be enforced, no access to funds to grow (if it’s a legit business), violence and crime run rampant, etc. You assume that in a society where each individual holds equal power there is some practicable way to create power enough to arbitrate disputes and enforce mutually accepted law that is incorruptible. How? And how do you overcome the "prisoner's dilemma"?

I believe you are wrong when you say ‘human beings live best in solidarity’ or individuals prosper all by themselves; they prosper with the support of a government that offers them opportunities, services, security, etc. I’m guessing you’re not bothered by the lack of your theory's real-world success; after all, how do you make things better without change? I’m all for change, but if your government isn’t providing these things the answer is reform, not anarchy.

Click to expand...

Actually that's not entirely accurate.

The market of course could be used to provide services that we are often lead to believe is a result of the government, and in many cases such a belief is flawed.

Many individuals and corporations employee private security forces (of course they do nothing more than detain until the agents of the State arrive.)

Contract Enforcement could be upheld by corporations acting as brokerages for witnessing contracts, and enforcing them, and thus contract enforcement could still take place.

And the government does not prevent people from acting with out honor, and screwing people over. That is a flaw in individuals.




MS

Your arguments about Communism being a "fight" for freedom are incorrect, that is not what communism entails. Communism is an ideology built around the violation of individual's rights to collect wealth, accumulate property and do what they wish free of the coercement of other people. A Communism system doesn't just punish the rich, it punishes everyone be discouraging hardwork, savings and thrift and rewarding sloth, laziness and spend thrift behavior.

It discourages hardwork, because there is no punishment for not working hard, instead people try to avoid doing as much work as possible, while still giving the appearance of working.

There was a joke in the Soviet Union near its end, "We pretend to work, and the state pretends to pay us."

And make no mistake, Anarcho-Communism is a paradoxical ideology. You can not have Communism with out a coercive state, because individuals will be free to do what they want. Of course, there will always be individuals that are selfish (such a thing is unavoidable) but there will also be those that want to accumulate wealth that they can then use to help people.

You're also arguing from what I agree is the viewpoint of a person looking at a crowded restaurant envying people the fruits of their labor and wishing to deprive them of it, while ignoring the economic activity taking place around you.

Corporations don't screw people over, people screw themselves over, by refusing to advance themselves. You even stated that you would not let unqualified people become doctors, pilots, software engineers, and other groups of professionals, but if you are not going to discourage such "rent" seeking by individuals wishing to earn more, then you can not punish them for taking the time to learn the skills necessary to pursue those careers by expecting them to take lesser pay for what is greater work, because it provides greater productivity.

Though, I would say that the biggest corporation in existence is the State, and we have seen how it has used public money for the benefit of the few, and thus demonstrated an amount of corruption that is disgusting. The monopolization of government is something that should end, but that is not the free market, that is government interfering in the free market.

Yes, it may do a lot of good, but it ultimately does more harm by creating pointless rules and regulation that do not protect people from poorly cooked food.


--- Moving back to the comments about the 19th century ---

And you think the current system does anything to prevent that, have you had your head buried in the sand Dystopia, because obviously you have been ignoring the news.

Corporations that package meat closing due to e-coli outbreaks, tainted food imported from abroad. The government that you defend, is the government that you are proposing, and like any government it can not be everywhere watching everything, nor should it be.

There is a reason why society has adopted a system of laws that allow for liability claims against manufacturers of faulty products. This system would not necessarily change with out government existing, because individuals would still likely demand that there be an agency to enforce product standards.

Yes, there might be additional fly by night operations, but if it was determined that their food was spoiled, tainted or unfit for consumption the market would punish them by driving them into bankruptcy, and the cities or states playing host to them would likely demand that they compensate the people they have harmed through their negligence, or close down. Or the people that they harmed might band together and picket them, using their voices to let everyone know why they shouldn't do business with that company any longer.

The internet makes it even easier, and the existence of a body like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) would likely remain, because corporations would want to know what kind of business they are dealing with. The absence of government would not diminish the possibilities of the free market recognizing demand, and filling it.

magicSpoons said:

People would only be forced to work for survival which is an integral part of nature, I'm sure you'd agree too that there is no escaping from that. But in capitalism, people are conned into thinking they are working to survive and live but really they are working for the accumulation of capital, they work way more than they need to each day so the capitalists can get rich and then they are refunded for their time with a wage, enough to survive and buy a few things, but most of their labour is stolen and forms profit.

Money is simply the tool that capitalists used to get rich in the first place. They can claim a monopoly on something, say a forest and all its timber and of course society needs timber for constructuion, furniture, everything else, so the capitalists gain economic dominance because they can sell their stolen commodity at whatever price they like. Money is nothing more than alienated dead labour bound up in metal and its just a tool for the capitalists to exploit. Of course there aren't enough commodities in a certain geographical area but the influx of imported goods will rely on the work of other people in another area, and they will work not because they have to but because it benefits them to do so, this is because of indirect reciprocation. If everybody realises we are strongest when we help each other, people won't mind working to help a community they don't live in because they know another community somewhere else will help them out.

Click to expand...

If you're working to survive than you're an imbecile that obviously has not given any thought to pursuing a better paying career.

As far as your arguments against profits, the counter argument to that is that wages are an advance (a loan) against sales revenue, and thus profit is interest on loans advanced to workers prior to their product being sold. While profit margins on some things are outlandish, not every sector of industry enjoys 20+% margins, more often established industries only see 10 - 13% which is not that high of interest on a loan, when you compare it to what companies like banks charge to people with out credit (18% for autoloans, 29% for credit cards, 300+% for Payday lenders.)

Communism is an ignorant philosophy that attempts to simplify the economic forces to simply. Adam Smith probably rolled over in his grave when Marx started writing the Manifesto.

What is even more strange is the fact that Marx never got around to clearly delineating the Proletariat and the Bourgouise, despite the fact that both played starring roles in his fictional make believe fantasies.

TheBrutalTruth said:

Actually that's not entirely accurate.

The market of course could be used to provide services that we are often lead to believe is a result of the government, and in many cases such a belief is flawed.

Many individuals and corporations employee private security forces (of course they do nothing more than detain until the agents of the State arrive.)

Contract Enforcement could be upheld by corporations acting as brokerages for witnessing contracts, and enforcing them, and thus contract enforcement could still take place.

And the government does not prevent people from acting with out honor, and screwing people over. That is a flaw in individuals.

--- Moving back to the comments about the 19th century ---

And you think the current system does anything to prevent that, have you had your head buried in the sand Dystopia, because obviously you have been ignoring the news.

Corporations that package meat closing due to e-coli outbreaks, tainted food imported from abroad. The government that you defend, is the government that you are proposing, and like any government it can not be everywhere watching everything, nor should it be.

There is a reason why society has adopted a system of laws that allow for liability claims against manufacturers of faulty products. This system would not necessarily change with out government existing, because individuals would still likely demand that there be an agency to enforce product standards.

Yes, there might be additional fly by night operations, but if it was determined that their food was spoiled, tainted or unfit for consumption the market would punish them by driving them into bankruptcy, and the cities or states playing host to them would likely demand that they compensate the people they have harmed through their negligence, or close down. Or the people that they harmed might band together and picket them, using their voices to let everyone know why they shouldn't do business with that company any longer.

The internet makes it even easier, and the existence of a body like the BBB (Better Business Bureau) would likely remain, because corporations would want to know what kind of business they are dealing with. The absence of government would not diminish the possibilities of the free market recognizing demand, and filling it.

Click to expand...

Nice response and I get what you're saying, but you're arguing libertarianism and I was arguing anarchy. Granted, the difference can be subtle, but there is a difference.

Sure, you can replace most government functions with private entities and let the "invisible hand" guide the market. But I don't think an anarchist would appreciate a private security force or "enforcement" of any kind any more then government enforcement. Especially if the enforcement led to excesses, as often happens in unregulated markets, like say what happened with the private security forces in Iraq (I know, excessive force is not unheard of with government forces - thus reform is required).

Regardless, I'll have to dust off my old copy of "Atlas Shrugged" if you want to argue libertarianism.

Edit: You say it is no different now then the 19th century ('Corporations that package meat closing due to e-coli outbreaks, tainted food imported from abroad.') Seriously, what percentage of the population is dying or even getting sick from these "e-coli outbreaks" now? Are you saying that we are no better off now under our current system then we were in the 19th century when libertarianism was prevalent?

Dystopia said:

Nice response and I get what you're saying, but you're arguing libertarianism and I was arguing anarchy. Granted, the difference can be subtle, but there is a difference.

Sure, you can replace most government functions with private entities and let the "invisible hand" guide the market. But I don't think an anarchist would appreciate a private security force or "enforcement" of any kind any more then government enforcement. Especially if the enforcement led to excesses, as often happens in unregulated markets, like say what happened with the private security forces in Iraq (I know, excessive force is not unheard of with government forces - thus reform is required).

Regardless, I'll have to dust off my old copy of "Atlas Shrugged" if you want to argue libertarianism.

Edit: You say it is no different now then the 19th century ('Corporations that package meat closing due to e-coli outbreaks, tainted food imported from abroad.') Seriously, what percentage of the population is dying or even getting sick from these "e-coli outbreaks" now? Are you saying that we are no better off now under our current system then we were in the 19th century when libertarianism was prevalent?

Click to expand...

What percentage was getting sick in the 19th century?

Of course advancement in medicine limit deaths, and technological advancement limits food poisoning as a result of bacterial growth, but I don't see corporations going out of their way to kill their customers, because dead customers are not repeat customers (though I might see funeral parlors and coffin sellers killing people to bump up demand, )

Yes, I'm arguing Minarchy or Libertarianism. MagicSpoon was arguing more Anarchy. Though I believe MS has confused Anarchy and Communism.