bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?

[Cream]

Yes, I agree. Money changes a lot of things in life. Even I have faced such happenings.

[aigeezer]

(And as I tried to explain in this thread several times already, socialism originally had nothing to do with statism.)

I believe you are referring to non-coercive socialism. And you never answered my question on what the difference would be between non-coercive socialism and private charities?
I don't see any point in calling it socialism if it's non-coercive.

No, you're still on the wrong boat.

Again, socialism means workers to be in control of the means of production. It seems many people have to unlearn a lot before they can wrap their heads around what is outside this very false dichotomy of state vs market. Watch this docu for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

Agreed. Yet another facet to the false dichotomy in our era is that the "isms" were attuned to the industrial revolution, not an age of bots and 3d makers. Whatever merit the concepts had is much less relevant in a world without "factory workers". People continue to debate what were once propaganda slogans from another time, while ignoring the reality around them. That's fine by me - it gives me a competitive advantage as long as those people don't pick up pitchforks and destroy everything in blind Luddite rage. Ain't it awful!       
 

[forevernoob]

(And as I tried to explain in this thread several times already, socialism originally had nothing to do with statism.)

I believe you are referring to non-coercive socialism. And you never answered my question on what the difference would be between non-coercive socialism and private charities?
I don't see any point in calling it socialism if it's non-coercive.

No, you're still on the wrong boat.

Again, socialism means workers to be in control of the means of production. It seems many people have to unlearn a lot before they can wrap their heads around what is outside this very false dichotomy of state vs market. Watch this docu for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y

No disrespect but I won't be watching a 1h+ documentary on the subject. Maybe later when I have more time. I have seen a bit of footage from it before since it was posted a few pages back.
Why can't you just explain how socialism is supposed to work without coercion?
I don't get how capitalism and socialism can co exist. The little of the documentary I saw they said "they got rid of capitalism and the state..." .

And again I mean no disrespect but I think one should be able to explain a ideology or philosophy with their own words. It's so much easier to understand.

[herzmeister]

No disrespect but I won't be watching a 1h+ documentary on the subject. Maybe later when I have more time. I have seen a bit of footage from it before since it was posted a few pages back.
Why can't you just explain how socialism is supposed to work without coercion?
I don't get how capitalism and socialism can co exist. The little of the documentary I saw they said "they got rid of capitalism and the state..." .

And again I mean no disrespect but I think one should be able to explain a ideology or philosophy with their own words. It's so much easier to understand.

I already did upthread, but I'm gonna try tackle it from another perspective.

Don't think of "socialism" in a top-down re-distributive sense. Think from the bottom-up. Let's start on a green field. You and your friends want to build a factory. If you organize that as a horizontal co-op without a boss, you all share risk and reward. You all own part of the means of production. The value is created by each and every worker by themselves. Nothing has to be "redistributed" "coercively". You all may even have different levels of competence, experience and dedication, and decide that wages will be different according to that. But all this will happen on mutual agreements. Mondragón, the largest (afaik) industrial co-op in the world, defying all recession in Spain because of their organizational structure, are graded 8:1 (managers vs beginners) for example. Good docu about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

Don't you think that is a very natural way to organize this? Is it clear how this is not coercive at all?

[X7]

No disrespect but I won't be watching a 1h+ documentary on the subject. Maybe later when I have more time. I have seen a bit of footage from it before since it was posted a few pages back.
Why can't you just explain how socialism is supposed to work without coercion?
I don't get how capitalism and socialism can co exist. The little of the documentary I saw they said "they got rid of capitalism and the state..." .

And again I mean no disrespect but I think one should be able to explain a ideology or philosophy with their own words. It's so much easier to understand.

I already did upthread, but I'm gonna try tackle it from another perspective.

Don't think of "socialism" in a top-down re-distributive sense. Think from the bottom-up. Let's start on a green field. You and your friends want to build a factory. If you organize that as a horizontal co-op without a boss, you all share risk and reward. You all own part of the means of production. The value is created by each and every worker by themselves. Nothing has to be "redistributed" "coercively". You all may even have different levels of competence, experience and dedication, and decide that wages will be different according to that. But all this will happen on mutual agreements. Mondragón, the largest (afaik) industrial co-op in the world, defying all recession in Spain because of their organizational structure, are graded 8:1 (managers vs beginners) for example. Good docu about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

Don't you think that is a very natural way to organize this? Is it clear how this is not coercive at all?

Anything done from a place of love and understanding is always a better solution, example of that is how you explained this to not be coercive i.e. allowing people to make their own choices based on free will / freedom.

Thumbs up

[MadAlpha]

I already did upthread, but I'm gonna try tackle it from another perspective.

Don't think of "socialism" in a top-down re-distributive sense. Think from the bottom-up. Let's start on a green field. You and your friends want to build a factory. If you organize that as a horizontal co-op without a boss, you all share risk and reward. You all own part of the means of production. The value is created by each and every worker by themselves. Nothing has to be "redistributed" "coercively". You all may even have different levels of competence, experience and dedication, and decide that wages will be different according to that. But all this will happen on mutual agreements. Mondragón, the largest (afaik) industrial co-op in the world, defying all recession in Spain because of their organizational structure, are graded 8:1 (managers vs beginners) for example. Good docu about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

Don't you think that is a very natural way to organize this? Is it clear how this is not coercive at all?

How about each company can organize their own internal structure in a way that suits them best? Why should there be one model for all? Do you think some outside force should dictate to companies how they should run their business? Tell them how many managers vs workers they should have?

Btw that kind of thinking is very coercive.

[forevernoob]

I already did upthread, but I'm gonna try tackle it from another perspective.

Don't think of "socialism" in a top-down re-distributive sense. Think from the bottom-up. Let's start on a green field. You and your friends want to build a factory. If you organize that as a horizontal co-op without a boss, you all share risk and reward. You all own part of the means of production. The value is created by each and every worker by themselves. Nothing has to be "redistributed" "coercively". You all may even have different levels of competence, experience and dedication, and decide that wages will be different according to that. But all this will happen on mutual agreements. Mondragón, the largest (afaik) industrial co-op in the world, defying all recession in Spain because of their organizational structure, are graded 8:1 (managers vs beginners) for example. Good docu about them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-obHJfTaQvw

Don't you think that is a very natural way to organize this? Is it clear how this is not coercive at all?

I just watched some more of the documentary (about the Spanish revolution) and so far I'm not convinced there is any non-coercive anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism.
I'm at the 1h mark now BTW.
They mentioned in the documentary that one of the goals of libertarian communism where that everything belongs to everyone, and therefore should be distributed fairly.
They also mentioned that decisions where taken by a general assembly where the majority decided what should be done.

Another funny thing they mentioned was that money was abolished except some parts where local coins where created and used.
I guess that means that you are right with bitcoin being compatible with Socialism but on the other hand it's contradicted by the fact that you cannot redistribute it. (how would you prove that someone has massive wealth in bitcoin?)  

They do mention that Individualists existed but "they had to correspond to produce" whatever that means.
I am positive they mean they where forced to give up there property/wealth for the better of the collective.


In regards to Mondragón I am for whatever works for the individuals that works there. If that 8:1 ratio works for them that's great! But what does that have to do with anything?
In anarcho-capitalism you can choose to setup a enterprise like that, there is nothing stopping you.

[herzmeister]

I just watched some more of the documentary (about the Spanish revolution) and so far I'm not convinced there is any non-coercive anarcho-communism or anarcho-socialism.
I'm at the 1h mark now BTW.
They mentioned in the documentary that one of the goals of libertarian communism where that everything belongs to everyone, and therefore should be distributed fairly.
They also mentioned that decisions where taken by a general assembly where the majority decided what should be done.

These were mostly rather small communities where everyone knew everyone. From an economical point of view, you could see each community as their own horizontally organized largely self-sufficient organization producing everything they need, sharing risk and reward. If you don't like it there, you can always join another, or become an individualist (maybe an artisan or single entrepreneur).

Another funny thing they mentioned was that money was abolished except some parts where local coins where created and used.
I guess that means that you are right with bitcoin being compatible with Socialism but on the other hand it's contradicted by the fact that you cannot redistribute it. (how would you prove that someone has massive wealth in bitcoin?)  

Without a single monopolistic currency, which only a state can enforce (mainly through taxation), there may be many forms of money, local currencies, or just merely reputation systems in place, or no money at all. Each community would decide for their own what works best for them. I imagine Bitcoin would be used for internet / long distance trade.

They do mention that Individualists existed but "they had to correspond to produce" whatever that means.
I am positive they mean they where forced to give up there property/wealth for the better of the collective.

It was essentially barter. Though if many more people choose to be in collectives rather than being on their own, individualists may find themselves in a worse negotiation position. Maybe it would be different today with all available technology now, or maybe you would have to accept the fact that in a true voluntary society not all people would think the way you do, and would choose to cooperate with others rather than being on their own.

In regards to Mondragón I am for whatever works for the individuals that works there. If that 8:1 ratio works for them that's great! But what does that have to do with anything?
In anarcho-capitalism you can choose to setup a enterprise like that, there is nothing stopping you.

How about each company can organize their own internal structure in a way that suits them best? Why should there be one model for all? Do you think some outside force should dictate to companies how they should run their business? Tell them how many managers vs workers they should have?

In today's political systems, there are mostly no legal forms that would enable such an enterprise.

In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.

Anarcho-"Capitalism" is impossible! Why? Because:

Under anarchism, mass accumulation and concentration of capital is impossible.
Without concentration of capital, wage slavery is impossible.
Without wage slavery, there’s nothing most people would recognize as “capitalism”.

So isn't it more sensible even with a rather ancap mindset to favor rather horizontal structures, as they would prevent many of the mentioned issues in the first place, which would save society a lot of unnecessary collateral cost for means of protection? (note there was no police in anarchist Spain, and today the Basque Country, where Mondragón is located as the largest employer by far, has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.)

[BTCIndia]

Money can do miracles!

[Beliathon]

Any society, any nation, should be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest, the most vulnerable.

Let reason be your map, and compassion your compass. Always remember that violence suffocates reason. All the rest will fall into place.

Hint: Capitalism requires vast, systematic hierarchy-based violence to exist.

"Capitalism has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
-Slavoj Zizek, THE SPECTRE IS STILL ROAMING AROUND!

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/the-spectre-is-still-roaming-around/

[cuddaloreappu]

Money can do miracles!

well said, In India it even does things much more than miracles

[Beliathon]

Money can do miracles!

well said, In India it even does things much more than miracles

Indeed:

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990121&slug=2939824

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/13/international/asia/13india.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/mar/12/india.theobserver

http://newyorkgritty.net/?p=2610

oops that last one isn't India, it's New York. My bad.

[Ringumbau]

Be poor = socialist
Be rich = libertarian
Be poor and think you can get rich = libertarian

[Beliathon]

Be poor = socialist
Be rich = libertarian
Be poor and think you can get rich = libertarian

It's about conscience more than wealth, although your third point is correct and important.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SKEODtaQUU

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
-John Steinbeck, 1962

"And now the forces marshaled around the concept of the group have declared a war of extermination on that preciousness, the mind of man. By disparagement, by starvation, by repressions, forced direction, and the stunning blows of conditioning [read: schooling / indoctrination], the free, roving mind is being pursued, roped, blunted, drugged. It is a sad suicidal course our species seems to have taken."

[MadAlpha]

In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.

Very important observation, and you are totally correct. Anarchism is of course totally incompatible with capitalism.

"Capitalism has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
-Slavoj Zizek, THE SPECTRE IS STILL ROAMING AROUND!

And this free trade (and freedom in general), is what you hold so evil?

You like to speak of "exploitation". I am well aware of how Karl Marx defined it. If an employer pays his worker 1000 dollars to build a product, and then sells it for 1100 dollars, making a profit of 100, he "exploited" the worker for that 100 dollars. Even if the worker is perfectly happy to do the job for 1000, and no other employer would even pay him that much.

Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to find the best possible job they can, or even better, start their own company.

[Beliathon]

Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to (...) start their own company.

If you believe this nonsense, truly you live in a bubble dreamworld totally separate from reality.

Here on Reality Ranch, only a tiny fraction of the population ever have the "freedom" (financial ability) to start their own companies. Worse still, 8 out of 10 of those businesses will fail within 18 months, often leaving their founders destitute and in debt.

In capitalism, wealth = freedom. Poverty = slavery. And since damn near all the wealth in concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, almost everyone in the society is a wage-slave. The richest 1% hoards more of USA's wealth than 9 out 10 Americans believe the top 20% should have.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”
-Tom Morello

[cuddaloreappu]

Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to (...) start their own company.

If you believe this nonsense, truly you live in a bubble dreamworld totally separate from reality.

Here on Reality Ranch, only a tiny fraction of the population ever have the "freedom" (financial ability) to start their own companies. Worse still, 8 out of 10 of those businesses will fail within 18 months, often leaving their founders destitute and in debt.

In capitalism, wealth = freedom. Poverty = slavery. And since damn near all the wealth in concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, almost everyone in the society is a wage-slave. The richest 1% hoards more of USA's wealth than 9 out 10 Americans believe the top 20% should have.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”
-Tom Morello

But think about the future, with DAO...a small group of young entrepreneurs just raised more than 10 million in just a month without running behind investors..its quite amazing right..I am talking about the ethereum project

[jonald_fyookball]

Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to (...) start their own company.

If you believe this nonsense, truly you live in a bubble dreamworld totally separate from reality.

Here on Reality Ranch, only a tiny fraction of the population ever have the "freedom" (financial ability) to start their own companies. Worse still, 8 out of 10 of those businesses will fail within 18 months, often leaving their founders destitute and in debt.

In capitalism, wealth = freedom. Poverty = slavery. And since damn near all the wealth in concentrated in the hands of a tiny few, almost everyone in the society is a wage-slave. The richest 1% hoards more of USA's wealth than 9 out 10 Americans believe the top 20% should have.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”
-Tom Morello

You are correct that not everyone has the resources or talent to run a successful business.
And you are certainly entitled to your opinion that capitalism is a bad system. 
However, I feel you should have the intellectual honesty to admit that any alternative
would require some degree of coercion/force backed wealth distribution.

Btw, there are about 28 million small businesses in the USA.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonnazar/2013/09/09/16-surprising-statistics-about-small-businesses/

[MadAlpha]

Any society, any nation, should be judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members -- the last, the least, the littlest, the most vulnerable.

What about judging a society on the basis of how it treats its best members? The competent, the intelligent, the hard-working, the inventors, the enterpreneurs, the trailblazers?

Let reason be your map, and compassion your compass.

I have lots of compassion, but none for those who would make me their slave and place me at their servitude. I also have no compassion for those who think they are entitled to wealth or property of another man, based not on their virtues, but on their vices.

Here on Reality Ranch, only a tiny fraction of the population ever have the "freedom" (financial ability) to start their own companies

According to quick google, it costs around $50 to $250 to incorporate a company in the US, depending on the state? I guess there are few other costs as well, but you are right, it is too expensive.

Also please don't use USA as synonymous with real capitalism, it certainly isn't, even if it is a notch closer than many other countries. I am not arguing in favor of the current system in USA, it is just as bad as anything else.

You didn't answer to my question:

And this free trade (and freedom in general), is what you hold so evil?

[jonald_fyookball]

even incorporation is not necessary.  You can be a sole proprietor.  You can start a business for exactly $0 if you want.  You can get a free website, blog, etc.  There is no cost to accepting Bitcoin or even Paypal until you are receiving money.