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
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. Everyone might find joy in gardening. 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. |
|
|
|
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. People should farm. 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 |
|
|
|
|
Socialism is the attempt to override using various means the miscellaneous trappings of statehood.
Anarchists are socialists, capitalists are socialists, marxists, maoists, antimonarchists, the redemopublicratian party, me, you.
The encompassing shape of what a state is, often supercedes socialist agendas, repressing it into a totalitarian state run monster.
Yup. Capitalists are socialists. *currently bracing for impact*
|
|
|
|
http://www.panarchy.org/kropotkin/economics.html“A great number of the inhabitants of the cities will have to become agriculturists. Nor in the same manner of the present peasants who wear themselves out, ploughing for a wage that barely provides them with sufficient food for the year, but by following the principles of intensive agriculture, of the market gardeners, applied on a large scale by means of the best machinery that man has invented or can invent.” (The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 16) “Truly we are rich -far richer than we think; rich in what we already possess, richer still in the possibilities of production of our actual mechanical outfit; richest of all in what we might win from our soil, from our manufactures, from our science, from our technical knowledge, were they but applied to bringing about the well-being of all.” “In our civilized society we are rich. Why then are the many poor?” “It is because, taking advantage of alleged rights acquired in the past, these few appropriate today two thirds of the products of human labour, and then squander them in the most stupid and shameful way.” (The Conquest of Bread, Chapter 1) Whenever a saving of human labour can be obtained by means of a machine, the machine is welcome and will be resorted to; and there is hardly one single branch of industry into which machinery work could not be introduced with great advantage, at least at some of the stages of the manufacture. In the present chaotic state of industry, nails and cheap pen-knives can be made by hand, and plain-cottons by woven in the hand-loom; but such an anomaly will not last. The machine will supersede hand-work in the manufacture of plain goods. But at the same time, hand-work very probably will extend its domain in the artistic finishing of many things which are now made entirely in the factory; and it will always remain an important factor in the growth of thousands of young and new trades.” (Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow)
|
|
|
|
You owe youself that sacrifice, trusting you are doing good.
Creativity is not dependant on profit, its just what people do.
Really? Most people (including me) create things so they can have a better life. If there is not great reward in creation, then why suffer so much in doing it? Creating things other people want is very very hard work. If I would not get a big reward from it, then it would be better to just chill out and not work. Good faith in your community appreciating your worth and supporting you is paramount.
Setting quality of life to your capacity to obtain personal profits based on the use of toiler's labor you cannot own results in vile capitalist ethics.
You forget that the capitalist is NOT forcing anyone to work for him. The laborer does so freely, because it's still easier than farming your own food. Thus the capitalist simply provides the laborer an option: work for me and live an easier life in which you don't have to farm yourself. Do you think the laborer would be better off without that option? 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.
My chef buddy got some free food from the crowdfunded community garden, planted witn non copyrighted seeds and prepared a gourmet meal for me. For free.
I tip her. DIY.
Where does capitalism need to be here?
I am not paying for food. See: Freeganism.
Food is an abstraction of things like pomegranates, sugar and deer meat.
Do you know how capitaism deals with sugar?
Factory farms, beakless legless chickens...
And this friend would be happy to support you freely for the rest of his life? He would do the work and you would just eat without paying him anything? Question: are you getting ALL your food without paying? If not, then why not? 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. |
|
|
|
Food is not wealth.
Words are fun. I consider it unethical to pay for food. Good luck with that. Food is free, ask the dumpster or your garden. Scarcity is a malignant lie. When the capitalist corners the market on human livers in addition to other commodities like mineral reserves, water, or food, or land in the case of the state, we will always see the same disparity. Lets avoid that. Corporations like Exxon ect. manage resources in a way that kills people or at least deprives them of free access to that resource. To maintain this we need the coercive state, or at least clever marketing. When Monsanto corners the food market even more fully, mere existence becomes debt to the capitalists. Meanwhile, outside of capitalism, all is for all, the price is not manipulatibely inflated by monopoly, and people stop starving to death. AT THE SAME TIME, my chef buddy prepares free ingredients, makes the tasty tasty, and I donate BTC to help the talented chef feed more people wonderful delicacies. Is raw material wealth? No. It's the potential for it Like I said, good luck with that. You are in good company with most Americans but they word things a bit differently. When the system collapses you will have an edge and be the best at scavenging while other people will starve. Your wealth of knowledge will come in handy. Gosh I sure hope so. Thanks. Vulnerability, yo. |
|
|
|
Problem with any system is that humans have needs.
And the need to full-fill these needs is very often exploited or exploitable...
There is no perfect solution yet, because some humans aren't altruistic...
Altruistic is a very sketchy word, but hey.. runninituptehflagpole Motivating and indoctrinating a population to avoid altruism, incentivizing them to exploit real needs fuels and permeates capitalistic thought. |
|
|
|
Communism is post-capitalistic state monopoly.
Socialism is an umbrella term without much real meaning to me.
Reigions all have their ups and downs. Capitalists exploit people to increae their own affluence the value of this is up to you. I guess that makes a mansion in a 'good' neighborhood nice... Lawns.
They dont exist in a vaccumm. Exploiters always have the exploited in ghettoes, on any scale.
If I sacrifice my time and succeed in creating something that has so much value to you that you want to pay me for it, then how on earth am I exploiting you? You are giving me your money freely, because you want what I have created. You want to make those who create things with value the bad guys? Can't you see that if you punish the producers then they cease to have a reason for creatings better things for everyone? I could live without mcdonalds. In fact, I do. You owe youself that sacrifice, trusting you are doing good. Creativity is not dependant on profit, its just what people do. Good faith in your community appreciating your worth and supporting you is paramount. Setting quality of life to your capacity to obtain personal profits based on the use of toiler's labor you cannot own results in vile capitalist ethics. |
|
|
|
Food is free, ask the dumpster or your garden. Scarcity is a malignant lie.
That's ridiculous. Food takes a lot of work to produce, thus it's not free. If it's free, then why are you paying for it? Just farm it yourself. My chef buddy got some free food from the crowdfunded community garden, planted witn non copyrighted seeds and prepared a gourmet meal for me. For free. I tip her. DIY. Where does capitalism need to be here? I am not paying for food. See: Freeganism. Food is an abstraction of things like pomegranates, sugar and deer meat. Do you know how capitaism deals with sugar? Factory farms, beakless legless chickens... |
|
|
|
ktttn, if capitalism is such a bad thing, and socialism is so great, then why do we get a very different picture when we look at the actual real world evidence?
Why are capitalist countries almost always over-performing compared to communist/socialist countries? Why are some of the best places to live capitalist countries and worst places to live socialist countries? Why do you think that is?
Communism is post-capitalistic state monopoly. Socialism is an umbrella term without much real meaning to me. Reigions all have their ups and downs. Capitalists exploit people to increae their own affluence the value of this is up to you. I guess that makes a mansion in a 'good' neighborhood nice... Lawns. They dont exist in a vaccumm. Exploiters always have the exploited in ghettoes, on any scale. |
|
|
|
Food is not wealth.
Words are fun. I consider it unethical to pay for food. Good luck with that. Food is free, ask the dumpster or your garden. Scarcity is a malignant lie. When the capitalist corners the market on human livers in addition to other commodities like mineral reserves, water, or food, or land in the case of the state, we will always see the same disparity. Lets avoid that. Corporations like Exxon ect. manage resources in a way that kills people or at least deprives them of free access to that resource. To maintain this we need the coercive state, or at least clever marketing. When Monsanto corners the food market even more fully, mere existence becomes debt to the capitalists. Meanwhile, outside of capitalism, all is for all, the price is not manipulatibely inflated by monopoly, and people stop starving to death. AT THE SAME TIME, my chef buddy prepares free ingredients, makes the tasty tasty, and I donate BTC to help the talented chef feed more people wonderful delicacies. Is raw material wealth? No. It's the potential for it |
|
|
|
Nah, rights as recognized by the rightgivering state as opposed to natural rights ( fo'lackovabttrterm ) are no more than targets for the state to attack. Name a right the state doesnt casually violate daily. You'll get no argument there. Which is why I am an anarcho-capitalist. You can't have an organization defending your rights if it violates them on the regular. Lets say...
Some sketchy bastard steals my backpack or jacket, the state gawks uselessly, helplessly while "recognition" -ing my "rights." That's a cute little story there, but I don't see where you're trying to go with it. As for Akido,
One's landing will be a sudden, eyeopening jolt of one rethinking a mugging. Ideally, of course. Precisely. Aikido perfectly encapsulates the non-aggression principle. It does not attack, only responds. It uses proportional force to the attacker's own. It is a very peaceful art. anarcho Anarchocuteness is the ancient martial art. anarchocapitalism is a mythical interim transition state. Marx was an anarcho. But forealdo. capitalism has failed. |
|
|
|
The process of moving forward requires that those basics are covered or at least not blocked for everyone.
True, but before the idea of "wealth" we just followed the herds and foraged for berries or planted things along their regular route. Then some society stock piled (either through war or mass foraging, or by pure luck they just had tons of dodo birds or something in the area) and were able to wait for a crop to come. Regional development is a form of wealth. Property ownership in terms of land begs the question of the country state- posessing remotely and the problem that is soverignty. Dodo birds. yo. |
|
|
|
Hypotheticals are cool unless you forget theyr'e hypotheticals.
Capitalism exists anywhere free trade is permitted. It existed before the State, it will exist after. HA HA HA HA HA OH WOW. Ill let someone else cover this slip up. OH.. my sides. oh.. So, you dont wanna just call that trade? Youre THAT married to the word capitalism? Unholy mother of Satan, son, get your shit together! Cognitive dissonance much? Free trade requires recognition of private property rights. That's capitalism, Kitten. Martial arts are essentialy able to be deeply understood to be nonviolent.
Aikido is non-aggressive. But as you're flying through the air after attacking an Aikido practitioner, consider whether or not your landing will be "violent." Nah, rights as recognized by the rightgivering state as opposed to natural rights ( fo'lackovabttrterm ) are no more than targets for the state to attack. Name a right the state doesnt casually violate daily. Lets say... Some sketchy bastard steals my backpack or jacket, the state gawks uselessly, helplessly while "recognition" -ing my "rights." As for Akido, One's landing will be a sudden, eyeopening jolt of one rethinking a mugging. Ideally, of course. These things are the on the periphery of the theory of nonviolence. Ill treat them with less rigor.
|
|
|
|
Why do they call him ironcross360? Because when you read any of his threads, you turn 360 degrees and walk away.
*spintwirl* *walkwalkwalk* *bump* Shutupandtakemymoney.jpg I <3 this idea. Folks can profit from making their own money. This sort of lovelyness is whats gonna make btc go biggest-time. I'd like to see mBTC and uBTC denominations, yo. |
|
|
|
When an owner doesnt use a thing, the thing is defacto abandoned.
I see. So, if I'm not in my car, it's abandoned? If I've gone off to work for the day, my house is abandoned? If I let you borrow my car for the week, it's abandoned? If you house-sit for me for the weekend, it's abandoned? If you oppose the NON AGGRESSION principle, that makes you aggressive pretty much by definition, doesn't it?
lol According to yer zany capitalist revisionist rhetoric nonsense grasping fer straws reasoning, whatever. Try nonviolence. Works just fine if everyone is nonviolent. But if you refuse to defend yourself, you're just handing your life over to the aggressor. STRAW MAN FALLACY lrn2notuse it. Martial arts are essentialy able to be deeply understood to be nonviolent. Nonviolence is a rejection of the violent conversation. |
|
|
|
Hypotheticals are cool unless you forget theyr'e hypotheticals.
Capitalism exists anywhere free trade is permitted. It existed before the State, it will exist after. HA HA HA HA HA OH WOW. Ill let someone else cover this slip up. OH.. my sides. oh.. So, you dont wanna just call that trade? Youre THAT married to the word capitalism? Unholy mother of Satan, son, get your shit together! Cognitive dissonance much? |
|
|
|
Stretching the definitition of war perhaps? Inevitably, scarcity of basic lifegiving goods will spark conflict, but in a world where food scarcity is a PR campaign, War happens.
Wealth is a level above the biological needs of a person. It's extra.
The Rainbow gathering discourages trading for food and water in order to allow for.trade if other things.
Intresting experiment btw.
Wealth HAS evolved to mean more. But the base of wealth is having food, shelter, water, women and comfort. Maybe some weed ("spices"). Everything else is just man made extras meant to expand on comfort and give you more access to the rest of the world. The process of moving forward requires that those basics are covered or at least not blocked for everyone. |
|
|
|
Nothing is voluntary with a gun to your head. There are factors at play, the omnipresent state, that youre ignoring. Capitalism in a stateless world is like Serfdom in a landless world.
By the way, Im pro monarchy.
*sigh* Yes, everyone is insane today. You're an idiot. No. ... I'm a cute little kitty-cat-meowmeow, herpderp capitalist blinderwearing herpderp! Hypotheticals are cool unless you forget theyr'e hypotheticals. Almost called you capitalist swine, but didn't. I dont actually think youre swine, just miseducated. |
|
|
|
If you oppose the NON AGGRESSION principle, that makes you aggressive pretty much by definition, doesn't it?
lol According to yer zany capitalist revisionist rhetoric nonsense grasping fer straws reasoning, whatever. Try nonviolence. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
