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

[ktttn]

You could imagine jobs that teach you nothing. We can call that toil. Payment for toil makes folks resist automation. Those jobs require automation, not human toil.

The labor union might resist, but why would the toilers resist getting a better tool?
Those tools tend to make fewer people more productive with less toil, often followed by increased payment in competitive markets.

Payment for toil is a signal to the market regarding which jobs require automation.  It is both an easier to measure and more accurate signal, than whether the worker is learning something, to determine automation priorities.

Why progress in the dark?

Theyre sure to resist the machine entirely replacing them. Determination of what toil is can't be made based on pay, it has to be identified by toilers and communicated to automators, a process pay interferes with.

[ktttn]

In practice, what you describe is the exception to the rule within a state capitalist framework. Dependency on employers prevents many from ever coming far enough out of debt to do what they want.
I have a hard time with equating pay to exoneration or choice because reliance on any paycheck does not let you all the way out of the state or capitalist's control.

Pay is to coercion as exoneration is to execution.  This does not in any way suggest that pay is equal to exoneration.
Pay is merely a civil agreement to perform for compensation so no it does not let you all the way out of state control, this is not its promises.
However it very well may put you all the way out of any particular capitalist's control, if by control you really mean enticement.

In jobs that can teach you something, you might as well be an intern.

Interns generally don't even get the fish for a day, the daily pay of the unskilled cabin boy is a better deal for the cabin boy.  Your priorities are screwed.

The civil agreement put forth by employers is the only option for toilers unless you can figure out how to thrive outside of it (which we should).

I know how, and my children will know also; but subsistance farming isn't a preferable lifestyle to most.  Specialization is for insects, but free trade always improves the lifestyles of those who freely engage in it.  And yes, I can prove that.

http://desertislandgame.com/

I don't consider the fishermen slaves. That's a fantastic example of how mutual aid works. Captaining a ship with a crew is a-ok by me, yo.

Capitalist pig!

Hmm. Without access to other people's economic calculations re: internships, you have no basis for accusing them of having screwed priorities. As someone who has actually been an intern, in my case the incentives were right for both sides of the trade. I got to work at a 'cool' place, had tutoring, room to experiment and make mistakes, and that made up for the low wage. In return, the employer got their easier/menial tasks done for a lower price, giving their full-time employees time to do more advanced stuff. Win win.

That desert island game seems like childish propaganda -- the only incentive that exists is a contrived need to eat an equal yet maximal amount of fish and coconuts. What about personal growth? Boredom? Self-sufficiency/safety/redundancy? Maslow's hierarchy of needs?? In trying to make a point about trading, the game dehumanises the characters -- they're just drones, and you're the controller trying to maximise factory output.

Market price for labor is how slavery works.
There is no such thing as a fair price, because the human slave trade determines the market price from the most abject slavery to the mcdonalds employee to the middle management and way on up to the CEO. A one way "market" is not a market. I cannot buy back my labor.

Great point. There seemed to be some uncomfortable squirming in the follow-up posts. I wonder why? Life largely consists of a fight for survival -- do whatever it takes to "not die" and then progressively fulfil all those other Maslowian needs. Being stuck, life-long in just one body (and you don't even get to choose which one) is not exactly a great start for voluntarism. It seems that most of life is involuntary -- people live out their genetic programming, and maybe, occasionally make conscious decisions. Even so, people seem divided on whether free will exists at all -- maybe our conscious 'I' is just a helpless observer and even the feeling of making a voluntary decision is just an illusion, another quale to add to the collection?

There's the issue of death. It's an "unknown unknown". We usually don't know when it'll happen, but we also don't know what happens. Do we get re-incarnated? Do we die forever? We don't even have first-hand proof if it happens! We only have the evidence of the 'Matrix' senses telling us that lots of other people die every day. Thus, we can't make accurate economic calculations on how to spend our time. This is where capitalism breaks down -- the economic calculations just don't work when we have no freaking idea what proportion of our life we are exchanging for the temporary enjoyment of some material item.

Similar points can be made about healthcare but I've had that discussion before.

+>9000
Throw some transhumanist immortality a la Robert A Wilson, and I'm finding you and I'm hugging you.

[molecular]

+>9000
Throw some transhumanist immortality a la Robert A Wilson, and I'm finding you and I'm hugging you.

that dude? read "prometheus rising" about 15 years ago. I think I might have to revisit.

[NewLiberty]

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.

This suggests that you would not oppose those AnCap fellows, if only you believed it were possible.
But you believe instead that Capitalism requires a state so there can never be such a thing as an Anarcho Capitalist geography?

I oppose it because I believe it is impossible.
Capitalism analyzed ignoring state power (which requires analytic gymnastics) still results in oppression and coercion.

I can't claim to speak for the AnCaps, but I think they do not ignore state power in any way.
Rather they seek to make state power redundant or obsolete, and to separate the influence of capital upon state power.
By your description of the oppression and coercion inherent in naked stateless capitalism, it seems you often mean what most might call enticement.  The rights of violence is the monopoly of the state.

[ktttn]

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.

This suggests that you would not oppose those AnCap fellows, if only you believed it were possible.
But you believe instead that Capitalism requires a state so there can never be such a thing as an Anarcho Capitalist geography?

I oppose it because I believe it is impossible.
Capitalism analyzed ignoring state power (which requires analytic gymnastics) still results in oppression and coercion.

I can't claim to speak for the AnCaps, but I think they do not ignore state power in any way.
Rather they seek to make state power redundant or obsolete, and to separate the influence of capital upon state power.
By your description of the oppression and coercion inherent in naked stateless capitalism, it seems you often mean what most might call enticement.  The rights of violence is the monopoly of the state.

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

[MoonShadow]

+>9000
Throw some transhumanist immortality a la Robert A Wilson, and I'm finding you and I'm hugging you.

Dude, just walk down the hall.  I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

[NewLiberty]

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

There you have it.  That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

[ktttn]

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

There you have it.  That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

[MoonShadow]

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

There you have it.  That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

[ktttn]

They don't ignore it, even though they might try.
To analyze "pure" capitalism, one has to ignore the state's influence.
The problem is that what one winds up analyzing, by ignoring the state, is an independently oppressive, albeit incomplete picture of what capitalism is.

There you have it.  That may be the essence of your disagreement with them.
Your claim is that capitalism is basket of things that includes states.
Their claim, (which is inherent in their very name), is that capitalism can exist without a state, and that this would solve the problems that you have in the capitalism basket.

Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean. Since then, I've learned that you don't think you owe the world anything and you don't think an opinion can be a persuasuive argument.
You think I can "learn" what capitalism is from you? When I've been under its boot and the boot of its conjoined twin, the state, my whole life?
What you're advocating is a popular idealist fallacy. While you can't disagree with me on any meaningful way, I strongly object to the revisionist rhetoric you obviously consume and regurgitate.
Your position is one that relies on what amounts to the blind systemic abuse of billions.
Read more stuff you don't like and you might have a clue about what I'm saying.

[myrkul]

What you're advocating is a popular idealist fallacy.

OK, let me see if I got this straight:

Private ownership of land and machinery, and voluntary purchase and sale of labor on an open market: Idealist Fantasy.

Everyone sharing and giving freely of themselves, working for the good of all rather than themselves: Totally Realistic.

Does that sum it up properly?

[blablahblah]

...
Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

Says he who assumes that anyone who doesn't fit the An-Cap / Libertarian / Laissez Faire world view must be a government agent...

+>9000...

Dude, just walk down the hall.  I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

Anyway, to try and summarise this "my Capitalism versus your Capitalism" debate:
-An-Caps + Libertarians seem to be using the word 'Capitalism' to describe a set of Western values: free/voluntary trade, using money and/or barter. And it's seen as purely an economic system.
-ktttn seems to be saying "no, it's also a political system. Those 'Western values' re: money, contracts, property rights, freedom, etc, are not natural, they are enforced, even if that enforcement can be a bit sloppy and incomplete."


Though I don't agree with everything kttn says, it's a refreshing change from the:
-"property rights are totally natural"
-"I don't know how my mind got to inhabit this body, but I hereby claim ownership upon it (the body)"
-"<circular_reasoning>property rights are derived from the axiom of 'self-ownership', which is derived from property rights </circular_reasoning>"
-"freedom is a wondrous thing, let's relabel it 'security' and have friendly freedom companies 'security companies' sell/restrict it on the 'free' market"
-"competition is great, cooperation is great, but monopolies are evil...
-unless they're natural monopolies because sometimes economies of scale make cooperation more efficient than competition...
-unless they're governments because self-enforcement doesn't count as 'natural'"
-"and a majority exerting its will over a minority is coercive and evil...
-but a minority exerting its will over a majority is less evil because it's obviously more righteous...
-however, the coercive minority shouldn't be too small because then they become leaders in an authoritarian system of government like an oligarchy or dictatorship...
-therefore all governments are evil in principle,
-but without them there would be total anarchy and chaos, which is where the (haaallelujah!) Non-Aggression Principle comes in...
-Surely everyone agrees with The Golden Rule? Right? We'll just quietly slip in some Western values here like property rights, which implies concepts of theft, justice and all that other stuff we can't imagine living without (no thanks to our evil government that keeps oppressing us) NOTHING TO SEE HERE!! Hopefully no-one will notice"
-"Of course we wouldn't be so silly to presume we'd ever actually get this utopia, which kind of works in our favour. Conveniently, our idealism cannot be disputed with the help of real-world examples, and whenever someone engages us in debate it's always a great opportunity to for us to educate them about the error of their ways..."

...mind-numbing circle-jerk that regularly besieges the politics forum.

[MoonShadow]

...
Even that hypothetical "pure" Capitalism needs to have wage slaves indentured with economic coersion to generate profit for a profiteer -otherwise it's just squirrelish stockpiling.
I object to capitalism because it is not sustainable without constant privatized violence and because it is an inefficient way to create and trade things.

You object to something altogether different than what is advocated.  Again, you don't understand what capitalism is, and are apparently unwilling to reconsider your position; and thus assume that we are your opposition because you misunderstand our position.  Your confusion is not our responsibility; and despite our attempts to clarify your misunderstandings, you don't seem to have any interest in understanding anything.  I'll admit, in the beginning I misunderstood your position as well, as your's is a rather unusual perspective in my experience; but I'm no longer confused.  I understand your position, I don't disagree with it in any significant way; but you have a severely closed mind, either unwilling or unable to consider circumstances or possibilities outside of your prior consideration or comprehension.

Says he who assumes that anyone who doesn't fit the An-Cap / Libertarian / Laissez Faire world view must be a government agent...

+>9000...

Dude, just walk down the hall.  I'm sure that he works in the same five sided building you do.

I'm sure that everyone here, including you, were aware that was a joke.

[MoonShadow]

When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean.

Quote me, now.

[ktttn]

When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean.

Quote me, now.

umadbro?
I dont feel like rummaging through hundreds of posts, I'm on a smartphone.
Let's just say I made it up or am mistaken to save me the trouble of trying to prove it. Look it up if you want.
Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?
(... and NOT obliterating tons of workers' potential in the name of 'freedom' or whatever...)
EDIT: "Racist bastard" doesn't count.

[MoonShadow]

When I first engaged you, it was because you were namecalling and being mean.

Quote me, now.

umadbro?
I dont feel like rummaging through hundreds of posts, I'm on a smartphone.
Let's just say I made it up or am mistaken to save me the trouble of trying to prove it. Look it up if you want.

Nope.  You claimed you 'engaged' me because of my namecalling and meanness.  I expect you to prove it.  I will not suffer your slander.  If I called you anything harsh or unwarranted before you earned it, prove it and I will apologize.  Fail and you can expect whatever consequences of your slander that I can bring to bear.  And don't forget, you brought this upon yourself.

Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?

Hundreds, some better than others.  A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum.  You choose to ignore them.  I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.

(... and NOT obliterating tons of workers' potential in the name of 'freedom' or whatever...)
EDIT: "Racist bastard" doesn't count.

Correct, "Racist Bastard" does not count, because you earned that title. 

[Zarathustra]

Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?

Hundreds, some better than others.  A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum.  You choose to ignore them.  I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.

LOL. Not a single one. Hundreds of examples of religious, paternalistic, collectivist(-ic) interactions of dependent 'protection money payers'. Zero self-sufficiency and independence.
Self-sufficiency and independence (freedom) is there, where you produce for yourself (blood-community), but not for the hypercollective.

[Rassah]

Still catching up on this thread, but didn't want to let this gem slip through:

By the way, Im pro monarchy.

So, what would you say if I told you that I am a real, actual count?

[NewLiberty]

Ever come across that historical example of capitalism working?

Hundreds, some better than others.  A dozen of them were listed in that other thread you abandoned because you couldn't spin an argument, most of which were there before you were even a member of this forum.  You choose to ignore them.  I'm not obligated to do anything, and I'm not here to entertain you by doing tricks.

LOL. Not a single one. Hundreds of examples of religious, paternalistic, collectivist(-ic) interactions of dependent 'protection money payers'. Zero self-sufficiency and independence.
Self-sufficiency and independence (freedom) is there, where you produce for yourself (blood-community), but not for the hypercollective.

You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?

[Zarathustra]

You lost me after LOL.
Warum ist Autarkie im Blut Gemeinde relevant Kapitalismus?

'LOL-answers' and 'name-calling-answers' are typical in communications within an anonymous hypercollectiv, as this and other threads show. There is not much natural respect towards members outside of your blood community. That's also the reason why you need organised violence to enforce someone to interact economically (capitalism) with foreigners, strangers and aliens.

'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justive is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!

So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me,
Mom, in your long arms.
In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms.
In your arms.
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms.
Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms.
In your electronic arms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VIqA3i2zQw