Capitalism (continued from How do you deal with the thought about taxes)

[neutrinox]

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?

[Elwar]

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.

[neutrinox]

1. Just because it doesn't seem plausible in the modern world, does not make it impossible (there is an island were people share cars and stuff, so it is actually ALMOST real in some places).

A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth.

The world you described would be hell. No one would have the incentive to work hard, since they would not get any benefit from that. It would make no sense to be the one sacrificing your free time for innovating since you wouldn't get any reward for your sacrifice. This is exactly what happens is communist countries. People do the absolute minimum they can get away with.

What makes life worth living is that you can use your own skills to improve your environment and your life and keep the fruit of your labor. If you don't get to keep what you create, then there is nothing to be done in life.

2. I'm not talking about something imaginary. THAT IS socialism. The thing you are thinking of is Communism. It is not like talking about lakes made out of beer, it is like talking about socialism.

The world you described is just as realistic as one where all the lakes are made out of beer. We can say "it would be interesting to live in such a world" but that's pretty much it. No use discussing impossible things.

[ktttn]

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.

[ktttn]

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.

[ktttn]

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.

[neutrinox]

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?

[FinShaggy]

The world you described would be hell. No one would have the incentive to work hard, since they would not get any benefit from that. It would make no sense to be the one sacrificing your free time for innovating since you wouldn't get any reward for your sacrifice. This is exactly what happens is communist countries. People do the absolute minimum they can get away with.

To you that may be hell. But society was slave driven (so not "motivation") for a long time, so I think the world would become artistic and innovative like Greece if it were Socialist. It would just have to be aided by robots (slaves).

But even then I bet the Socialism would collapse, which is why I believe more in a "Robo-Socialist" Republic. It's socialism that can work...
Imagine a library where the masses get to decide what goes on the shelves, but they don't even ever have to go to the library if they don't want to an the library is run by robots and 2 mechanics. That would be the philosophy of the whole government.

And there would still be wealth to accumulate. You would just start with something also. Just something to give the children of the world a head start. So there is still plenty of incentive to get rich, you just start with capital.

[FinShaggy]

No use discussing impossible things.

There IS use in discussing such things, as you were discussing communism and calling it socialism. lol

[neutrinox]

The world you described would be hell. No one would have the incentive to work hard, since they would not get any benefit from that. It would make no sense to be the one sacrificing your free time for innovating since you wouldn't get any reward for your sacrifice. This is exactly what happens is communist countries. People do the absolute minimum they can get away with.

To you that may be hell. But society was slave driven (so not "motivation") for a long time, so I think the world would become artistic and innovative like Greece if it were Socialist. It would just have to be aided by robots (slaves).

But even then I bet the Socialism would collapse, which is why I believe more in a "Robo-Socialist" Republic. It's socialism that can work...

Don't forget that creating and maintaining robots is hard work. If there is no benefit for one to create a robot, then why should he be the one working on it? If I can design great robots but there is no reward for me to do so, then let me just watch tv and eat hamburgers while letting the other guys do the hard work of designing the robots. Of course with that kind of system and mentality, no one would eventually design anything.

And there would still be wealth to accumulate. You would just start with something also. Just something to give the children of the world a head start. So there is still plenty of incentive to get rich, you just start with capital.

Well your world would mean that I couldn't pass on any wealth that I have created to my children (since that would mean they have an advantage over others). If I worked hard my whole life to get a nice house and it would be "socialized" at my death and not given to my kids, I would rather burn it to the ground.

[ktttn]

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.

[FinShaggy]

The world you described would be hell. No one would have the incentive to work hard, since they would not get any benefit from that. It would make no sense to be the one sacrificing your free time for innovating since you wouldn't get any reward for your sacrifice. This is exactly what happens is communist countries. People do the absolute minimum they can get away with.

To you that may be hell. But society was slave driven (so not "motivation") for a long time, so I think the world would become artistic and innovative like Greece if it were Socialist. It would just have to be aided by robots (slaves).

But even then I bet the Socialism would collapse, which is why I believe more in a "Robo-Socialist" Republic. It's socialism that can work...

Don't forget that creating and maintaining robots is hard work. If there is no benefit for one to create a robot, then why should he be the one working on it? If I can design great robots but there is no reward for me to do so, then let me just watch tv and eat hamburgers while letting the other guys do the hard work of designing the robots. Of course with that kind of system and mentality, no one would eventually design anything.

And there would still be wealth to accumulate. You would just start with something also. Just something to give the children of the world a head start. So there is still plenty of incentive to get rich, you just start with capital.

Well your world would mean that I couldn't pass on any wealth that I have created to my children (since that would mean they have an advantage over others). If I worked hard my whole life to get a nice house and it would be "socialized" at my death and not given to my kids, I would rather burn it to the ground.

No. You are focusing to hard on the word socialist. If we are talking about the society I proposed, it is NOT at all the same as traditional socialism.

ROBO-Socialst REPUBLIC
Making this society a society that promotes individual freedom. Meaning you could pass wealth to your children.
And there will always be creative people trying to design new things, you can't just say "people will stop doing stuff one day". That simply is not how people work as a whole.

And there is reward for working. Even in a traditional socialist society you can work and get paid. I do propose mining though as a base income for everyone, and every town, state and nation should have it's own coin. Then you can work for people to get the coins they earned. Otherwise, what is the point of earning money at all?

[neutrinox]

No. You are focusing to hard on the word socialist. If we are talking about the society I proposed, it is NOT at all the same as traditional socialism.

If the basic principles of socialism that you yourself outlined are not in place, then why are you using the word socialism at all in the name of your system?

ROBO-Socialst REPUBLIC
And there will always be creative people trying to design new things, you can't just say "people will stop doing stuff one day". That simply is not how people work as a whole.

Really? Do you think slaves used to innovate much? There is no point in sacrificing your free time for innovation if you don't get to keep the benefits.

And there is reward for working. Even in a traditional socialist society you can work and get paid.

Oh yes, and this results in people doing the absolute minimum they can get away with. Why work harder than you lazy neighbor if you get the same reward in the end?

I do propose mining though as a base income for everyone, and every town, state and nation should have it's own coin. Then you can work for people to get the coins they earned. Otherwise, what is the point of earning money at all?

I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.

[ktttn]

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)

[FinShaggy]

No. You are focusing to hard on the word socialist. If we are talking about the society I proposed, it is NOT at all the same as traditional socialism.

If the basic principles of socialism that you yourself outlined are not in place, then why are you using the word socialism at all in the name of your system?

Because it IS still socialism, based on the amount of social welfare that will be provided.

ROBO-Socialst REPUBLIC
And there will always be creative people trying to design new things, you can't just say "people will stop doing stuff one day". That simply is not how people work as a whole.

Really? Do you think slaves used to innovate much? There is no point in sacrificing your free time for innovation if you don't get to keep the benefits.

You are so completely fucking confused. You DO get to keep the benefits, and the robots are the slaves, not the people. Which allows for TONS of innovation. And yes, I would assume that slaves are innovative, since they have to do the same amount of work no matter what, and they don't get paid less if they finish early.

[neutrinox]

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.

[FinShaggy]

I'm not sure if I follow your idea here. The point of earning money is being able to use it to improve your living conditions.

Wrong. Money is meant to be traded for service and goods.
If someone gets more food than they want from the government and you feel like yours wasn't enough for you, buy some of theirs. Or someone that has a stockpile/store.
You want a drivers license. Spend money at the DMV.
If you want a massage. You pay someone for it.

[neutrinox]

Because it IS still socialism, based on the amount of social welfare that will be provided.

By your own definition of socialism, it is not socialism. You are trying to change your own definition now:

"A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth."

You are so completely fucking confused.

And you are now on my ignore list.

[FinShaggy]

Because it IS still socialism, based on the amount of social welfare that will be provided.

By your own definition of socialism, it is not socialism. You are trying to change your own definition now:

"A society where EVERYONE is equal, EVERYTHING is shared an EVERYONE is given the same items, wealth and advantages at birth."

.

You are right, it IS NOT Socialism. It is a SOCIALIST REPUBLIC. So it is REPUBLICAN SOCIALISM. Which ads the entire idea of a Republican state to the idea of the socialist government....

Please try to keep up.

[ktttn]

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