Who is worse Fascists, Communists, Islamic Theocracy, Imp...

[Adamede]

If you blame every death from WWII on Hitler, sure.
No one can beat Mao for peacetime deaths.

In fairness, the only reason the KMT wouldn't have done such a dumb thing is largely because Chiang was a lot more ineffectual as a singular leader. Gotta give Mao credit, no one else, not even Stalin could make a system in which everyone knew the big guy was fucking up royally but kept going anyways.
That's, of course, why singular leaders are a poor thing to bet on, since you're basically flipping a coin. That's suckers gambling.

Only guy I can think of that launched a revolution against his own revolution.

[Kubra]

In fairness, the only reason the KMT wouldn't have done such a dumb thing is largely because Chiang was a lot more ineffectual as a singular leader. Gotta give Mao credit, no one else, not even Stalin could make a system in which everyone knew the big guy was fucking up royally but kept going anyways.
That's, of course, why singular leaders are a poor thing to bet on, since you're basically flipping a coin. That's suckers gambling.

Only guy I can think of that launched a revolution against his own revolution.

For real, and that folks actually went along with it. Mao's China was something extremely unique, a symbol of everything fucking weird and also murder-y weird about the 20th century.

[Hidrandia]

We should all use the Sumerian Way of life

[Elwher]

As someone who spent over 35 years in the working world, I was in positions where the employer held the cards and determined my pay; I was in situations where we negotiated on fairly equal terms, and I was in situations where the employer was desperate for someone with my skill set. The latter is much preferable, so the answer is to improve one's skills to be in that situation. If you intend a career of flipping burgers, you will not have much leverage. If you are the only programmer on the market who can code in NEAT-3, you become much more valuable.

That's real neat bro. Real happy for you. But most people don't have those highly valued skills and never will, so your point is moot.

And as to the other point, a faceless bureaucrat has no idea what my particular skills are worth; the representative of the soulless corporation does.

And what logic are you basing this on, exactly? You are aware that under a Socialist system the unions that run these facilities would be part of the government, yes?

I appreciate your implication that I am such an above-average person that I can learn things most people have no chance of understanding; but you're wrong. I do hope that no one bothers to learn NEAT-3, as it is currently outmoded, but most people have the intelligence to learn particular skills to qualify them for positions that pay better; welders, plumbers, nurses, and so many others that pay better than minimum wage.

I am basing my contention about the bureaucracy on two things. First, personal experience. I have seldom met a government representative who has any real idea of how much of a contribution a particular skill makes, nor one who could evaluate the difference between a good possessor of a skill and a bad one. Second, the soulless corporation can see exactly how much my skill set, and my level of proficiency with it, can affect the bottom line of that soulless corporation, and make a judgment of how much they are willing to pay for it.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's real neat bro. Real happy for you. But most people don't have those highly valued skills and never will, so your point is moot.



And what logic are you basing this on, exactly? You are aware that under a Socialist system the unions that run these facilities would be part of the government, yes?

I appreciate your implication that I am such an above-average person that I can learn things most people have no chance of understanding; but you're wrong. I do hope that no one bothers to learn NEAT-3, as it is currently outmoded, but most people have the intelligence to learn particular skills to qualify them for positions that pay better; welders, plumbers, nurses, and so many others that pay better than minimum wage.

I am basing my contention about the bureaucracy on two things. First, personal experience. I have seldom met a government representative who has any real idea of how much of a contribution a particular skill makes, nor one who could evaluate the difference between a good possessor of a skill and a bad one. Second, the soulless corporation can see exactly how much my skill set, and my level of proficiency with it, can affect the bottom line of that soulless corporation, and make a judgment of how much they are willing to pay for it.

Do you think people in minimum wage jobs have the time or the resources to learn how to code? Or to take some time for a multi-year education? This has nothing to do with intelligence and all with having the privilege to take education for granted.

Perfect reasoning on the second part, though. This is why I oppose the nationalisation of the post office in my country: I don't know any bureaucrat who would be good at delivering the mail.

See what's wrong with that logic?

[Kubra]

That's real neat bro. Real happy for you. But most people don't have those highly valued skills and never will, so your point is moot.



And what logic are you basing this on, exactly? You are aware that under a Socialist system the unions that run these facilities would be part of the government, yes?

I appreciate your implication that I am such an above-average person that I can learn things most people have no chance of understanding; but you're wrong. I do hope that no one bothers to learn NEAT-3, as it is currently outmoded, but most people have the intelligence to learn particular skills to qualify them for positions that pay better; welders, plumbers, nurses, and so many others that pay better than minimum wage.

I am basing my contention about the bureaucracy on two things. First, personal experience. I have seldom met a government representative who has any real idea of how much of a contribution a particular skill makes, nor one who could evaluate the difference between a good possessor of a skill and a bad one. Second, the soulless corporation can see exactly how much my skill set, and my level of proficiency with it, can affect the bottom line of that soulless corporation, and make a judgment of how much they are willing to pay for it.

Man, someone saying the folks upstairs know what's going on downstairs is pretty out there for folks who've worked downstairs.

[Elwher]

I appreciate your implication that I am such an above-average person that I can learn things most people have no chance of understanding; but you're wrong. I do hope that no one bothers to learn NEAT-3, as it is currently outmoded, but most people have the intelligence to learn particular skills to qualify them for positions that pay better; welders, plumbers, nurses, and so many others that pay better than minimum wage.

I am basing my contention about the bureaucracy on two things. First, personal experience. I have seldom met a government representative who has any real idea of how much of a contribution a particular skill makes, nor one who could evaluate the difference between a good possessor of a skill and a bad one. Second, the soulless corporation can see exactly how much my skill set, and my level of proficiency with it, can affect the bottom line of that soulless corporation, and make a judgment of how much they are willing to pay for it.

Do you think people in minimum wage jobs have the time or the resources to learn how to code? Or to take some time for a multi-year education? This has nothing to do with intelligence and all with having the privilege to take education for granted.

Perfect reasoning on the second part, though. This is why I oppose the nationalisation of the post office in my country: I don't know any bureaucrat who would be good at delivering the mail.

See what's wrong with that logic?

I was working at minimum wage jobs the entire time I was beginning to learn programming, once I got the basic skills (pun intentional) I started work at low level but above minimum wage jobs and worked on improving my skills. I do not consider myself in any way extraordinary; I think that most people could do the same in their chosen field IF it is important enough to sacrifice current enjoyment for future earnings.

My second point is not that the bureaucrat, whether government or corporate, could do the job. It is that the corporate bureaucrat has the cost figures at hand and an incentive to use them to determine the correct pay rate for a particular job within their corporation.

[Galiantus III]

I'm going to focus in on this part, because I think this is the most crucial part of the discussion.

Translation: "I'm going to ignore your other points because I don't have an argument against them."

Nope. Less is more. Your strategy isn't to make solid arguments but to overwhelm by responding to every single point. It's a classic Gish Gallop. I'm not going to play that game, because I don't have the time to. If you have important points to make, make them. Don't throw out numerous arguments, or I am going to pick the ones I feel are important and focus on them. If you don't like that... cope.

Yes, labor built the factory. Yes, labor extracted those raw materials. Yes, labor handled shipping and receiving. But you are ignoring the fact that the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" had to pay for those things. With money of his own. That he obtained legitimately. So that factory, those materials, and everything else that he paid for, is all rightfully his.

And this gives him the right to take home an exorbitantly bigger paycheck than his workers? What about when the capitalist dies/retirees and another takes over, are they inclined to the same treatment despite having had no personal involvement in any of this? What if it was the State that built the factory, who owns it then?

No, they didn't. These investors got their money from backing companies that turned out successful, or from starting their own companies (using money from other investors), or as a gift. "What do you mean gift?" you ask. Inheritance; scholarships; getting lucky; literal gifts. Whatever the case, all of this money was ultimately earned because the "evil, greedy, fat, capitalist pig" worked for it themselves, or someone who worked for it gave it to them, either as a gift or an investment.

You have a funny definition of "earn" if you include things like luck, inheritance, investment, or literal charity from friends and family lmao.

The reason that "jackass in a suit" deserves such a high pay is because he's the one putting thousands, or millions, or billions of dollars on the line, that neither he nor his investors were obligated to spend on anything.

You make it sound like these tools are risking poverty rofl. They aren't. Businesspeople don't invest all their money in one company and then pray it works, they do this with multiple companies. If one goes under they can just move on to another. They'll be fine, they won't be the ones feeling the hurt no matter how many zeroes they lose. The workers on the other hand are completely screwed. The fat cats aren't going to help them.

Never mind if the business is "too big to fail", as many businesses are these days.

It sounds to me like you have a problem with the concept of a gift. This makes no sense to me. If person A earned their money legitimately (according to all requirements you would impose) is there something wrong with them giving it to person B, for whatever reason? That is, if you take B's money to be used by the collective, because they didn't "earn" it, according to you, you are actually violating A's property rights, because A did earn their money legitimately, and thus has a right to direct its use, including ceding it as property to B.

"But where did these fat cats get their money? Didn't they steal it somehow?" I hear you ask.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of why Socialists view Capitalists as thieves, as displayed by these strawmen you kept building. You could, you know, argue in good faith maybe? Without making insulting inferences about my intelligence? Just a thought.

I brought up the labor theory of value earlier, so yes I do understand how Socialists think employers are thieves. But I reject the labor theory of value as nonsensical and impractical. It is self-evident that trade can make the lives of both parties involved better off. If value was something you could quantify intrinsically, as a function of something non-subjective (like labor) there would always be a loser in a trade. But this is rarely the case. This implies the value of the items traded depends on the opinion of the buyer, not the seller. Therefore, value is not a function of labor, and I can dismiss the foundation of the socialist claim that employment is theft.

If they just sat pretty and lived on it, instead of risking it, there would be no factory, no machines, no materials, and no option to labor for money.

I can confirm from personal experience that this isn't even remotely try. Corporate types will spend the bare minimum and no more to ensure things are running. If it isn't absolutely essential to keeping things moving they'll drag their feet on it for as long as possible, and whenever the company hits hard times guess whose getting pay cuts? Hint: it's not the people in the office buildings!

Bottom line: If you tell potential entrepreneurs and investors the only way they can have a company is if "the workers must own the means of production", there will be no means of production. No one - and especially not the workers you smile at with a forked tongue - is going to front the resources for a venture that requires ultimately losing money 100% of the time.

Lol. You really don't understand what Socialism is do you.

There are no "investors" or "entrepreneurs". These are Capitalist concepts; the idea of private individuals/organizations investing personal money into business so they can have a say on how things are done and a cut of the profits is not remotely Socialist in any sense of the word. There would be no millionaires throwing money around to prop up businesses in a Socialist system, partly because there would be no millionaires to do so. The factories, the mines, the farms, et cetera. would run by the will of the workers. They would collectively produce the product, collectively arrange for it's sale, and collectively acquire resources to build more product. Their work hours, wages, breaks, and so on would be collectively decided upon by themselves. The purpose would be the production of goods and the providing of services, not the pursuit of personal gain. All money made would go directly into the business itself and into the pockets of the workers themselves, not a bunch of nameless suits in an ivory tower nobody has ever met. The business therefor thrives precisely because there aren't a handful of jerkoffs in penthouse suites taking 50% of the profits home with them.

What you have specifically described here is a socialist system based on Marxist theory, where the workers own the means of production. That is, wage labor without ownership is illegal. You assert that workers would run mines, farms, and factories, but you give no viable economic justification for them to do so. The system you describe cannot sustain itself, because at the end of the day, the workers are people with economic interests, and acting in the way you describe makes no sense in the context of their personal wants and needs.

The main problem here is there is no rational reason for workers to run a communal company well. You say all business decisions would be made democratically; this is an incredibly stupid idea. Whatever branch of a company had the most people would just vote for higher wages for themselves, at the expense of any specialists. The short-term desires of the workers would bleed the company dry of funding, since no individual worker has an interest in the end product - only in meeting the technicalities required for a wage - and those same workers vote on those rules. In practice, workers would have every incentive to sabotage the company so they could withdraw as much wealth from the company as quickly as possible in the liquidation of its assets. And this destructive force would work very efficiently to dismantle the entire economy, because these same workers could also vote to make employment a "right" at the state level, in order to obtain access to the "greedy, selfish, hateful" few companies where people didn't immediately act on this obvious economic incentive.

The only way a company could potentially survive in this environment is by collectively choosing to adopt an internal capitalist system: A few specialists would be given stewardship of all company assets, and would not work for a wage, but would have the opportunity for profit. They would set wages and allocate funds. And since their income would be entirely dependent on the success of the end product, they could be expected to manage the company for success rather than failure. Unlike the workers, they would have the proper incentive to consider the future, rather than the immediate, short-term possibility of liquidating everything.

Alternatively, with this Marxist system, you could end up with an economy composed entirely of independent, self-employed workers. This could be sustainable, but it also means a lot of large, upscaled production would simply be impossible, so there would be a higher chance of shortages, and a general decline of technology.

[Hemakral]

snip

damn bro that wall so thick kool-aid man couldn't bust through

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Do you think people in minimum wage jobs have the time or the resources to learn how to code? Or to take some time for a multi-year education? This has nothing to do with intelligence and all with having the privilege to take education for granted.

Perfect reasoning on the second part, though. This is why I oppose the nationalisation of the post office in my country: I don't know any bureaucrat who would be good at delivering the mail.

See what's wrong with that logic?

I was working at minimum wage jobs the entire time I was beginning to learn programming, once I got the basic skills (pun intentional) I started work at low level but above minimum wage jobs and worked on improving my skills. I do not consider myself in any way extraordinary; I think that most people could do the same in their chosen field IF it is important enough to sacrifice current enjoyment for future earnings.

My second point is not that the bureaucrat, whether government or corporate, could do the job. It is that the corporate bureaucrat has the cost figures at hand and an incentive to use them to determine the correct pay rate for a particular job within their corporation.

The incentive to pay you as little as they can get away with, you mean.

[Galiantus III]

The incentive to pay you as little as they can get away with, you mean.

That incentive is countered by the incentive to actually have someone to do the work, in a market where another company could offer you a dollar more. i.e. competition. On the other hand, a socialist government is a monopoly, with no competition. You work for what they pay you, because they are the only option you have.

[HISPIDA]

The incentive to pay you as little as they can get away with, you mean.

That incentive is countered by the incentive to actually have someone to do the work, in a market where another company could offer you a dollar more. i.e. competition. On the other hand, a socialist government is a monopoly, with no competition. You work for what they pay you, because they are the only option you have.

the socialist could care less about money. money's not anything special; it's paper backed by nothing except trust and sometimes metal.

what good is it, then? money doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. the proletariat will sell their labor; for what? for enough "money" to have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries!

the idea of currency is one of the world's greatest scams.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The incentive to pay you as little as they can get away with, you mean.

That incentive is countered by the incentive to actually have someone to do the work, in a market where another company could offer you a dollar more. i.e. competition. On the other hand, a socialist government is a monopoly, with no competition. You work for what they pay you, because they are the only option you have.

Labour is not a free market.

See, this is the worst thing about those who believe capitalism is the best system: you once read a textbook on economics and think that, because you know what a supply and demand graph looks like, you have been granted arcane wisdom. It doesn't even go that deep, this knowledge, not taking into acount the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous goods, or markets with high or low barriers to entry. No, you make supply and demand your ideology, while people who bothered to actually learn about inelastic demand try to inform you, and you keep throwing superior knowledge of economics into the wind.

Let me give you an insight, as a union man who has to deal with this shit every day. Employers only compete on pay when that is literally their only option left. They would rather make agreements with other employers for their mutual benefit, keeping wages low. They keep people in the dark as to their actual pay and punish severely for speaking out for better conditions. The only field that competes on pay is STEM and IT. Anything else, from desk jobs to physical labour, is relegated to the market of pure fear. Speaking up for better pay will get you replaced by one of the thousands of others looking for a job. See, you have forgotten that workers compete with one another too, and they have a lot more to lose. The price for not getting a job is homelesness, starvation, lack of medical care, and thus death.

Meanwhile, if the means of production are held by the collective (as an anarchist, I despise the idea of state control over the economy), at least you can ensure that people get paid a living wage and that the working conditions are safe; that the workers are fully informed about the value of their own labour, instead relying on a boss to break bread with other bosses to determine that value.

That distopia you paint, of an employer unilaterally deciding on pay because you don't have other options, that's the lived reality right now for billions all over the world. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Galiantus III]

That incentive is countered by the incentive to actually have someone to do the work, in a market where another company could offer you a dollar more. i.e. competition. On the other hand, a socialist government is a monopoly, with no competition. You work for what they pay you, because they are the only option you have.

the socialist could care less about money. money's not anything special; it's paper backed by nothing except trust and sometimes metal.

what good is it, then? money doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. the proletariat will sell their labor; for what? for enough "money" to have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries!

the idea of currency is one of the world's greatest scams.

Alright, I'll shortcut it. Eliminate money, and we'll make it a pure barter economy - why should "Government Bureaucrat J5" care to allocate the state's resources to me, when I can't go somewhere else for employment? The state can make very arbitrary claims about where it ought to allocate resources - and why wouldn't bureaucrats engage in corruption and embezzlement if they can get away with it? Why wouldn't they help each other with that? See, people are selfish, regardless of where they are. Being a part of the state doesn't magically make people benevolent - and if you think it does, you need to spend the next year studying nothing but the history of human civilization. The state is the most murderous institution on the planet.

On the other hand, every employer is a competitor with every other employer. They can outbid each other with wages (which in a barter economy would be some kind of resource, such as grain), work conditions, benefits, etc. all in an effort to entice a worker to sign on with them. Thus the worker has many options, and a wise worker in a capitalist economy will have no problem making a living wage.

[HISPIDA]

the socialist could care less about money. money's not anything special; it's paper backed by nothing except trust and sometimes metal.

what good is it, then? money doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. the proletariat will sell their labor; for what? for enough "money" to have to choose between paying rent and buying groceries!

the idea of currency is one of the world's greatest scams.

Alright, I'll shortcut it. Eliminate money, and we'll make it a pure barter economy - why should "Government Bureaucrat J5" care to allocate the state's resources to me, when I can't go somewhere else for employment? The state can make very arbitrary claims about where it ought to allocate resources - and why wouldn't bureaucrats engage in corruption and embezzlement if they can get away with it? Why wouldn't they help each other with that? See, people are selfish, regardless of where they are. Being a part of the state doesn't magically make people benevolent - and if you think it does, you need to spend the next year studying nothing by the history of human civilization. The state is the most murderous institution on the planet.

On the other hand, every employer is a competitor with every other employer. They can outbid each other with wages (which in a barter economy would be some kind of resource, such as grain), work conditions, benefits, etc. all in an effort to entice a worker to sign on with them. Thus the worker has many options, and a wise worker in a capitalist economy will have no problem making a living wage.

[Galiantus III]

That incentive is countered by the incentive to actually have someone to do the work, in a market where another company could offer you a dollar more. i.e. competition. On the other hand, a socialist government is a monopoly, with no competition. You work for what they pay you, because they are the only option you have.

Labour is not a free market.

See, this is the worst thing about those who believe capitalism is the best system: you once read a textbook on economics and think that, because you know what a supply and demand graph looks like, you have been granted arcane wisdom. It doesn't even go that deep, this knowledge, not taking into acount the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous goods, or markets with high or low barriers to entry. No, you make supply and demand your ideology, while people who bothered to actually learn about inelastic demand try to inform you, and you keep throwing superior knowledge of economics into the wind.

Let me give you an insight, as a union man who has to deal with this shit every day. Employers only compete on pay when that is literally their only option left. They would rather make agreements with other employers for their mutual benefit, keeping wages low. They keep people in the dark as to their actual pay and punish severely for speaking out for better conditions. The only field that competes on pay is STEM and IT. Anything else, from desk jobs to physical labour, is relegated to the market of pure fear. Speaking up for better pay will get you replaced by one of the thousands of others looking for a job. See, you have forgotten that workers compete with one another too, and they have a lot more to lose. The price for not getting a job is homelesness, starvation, lack of medical care, and thus death.

And it is for that very reason I think it is the place of the state to compel companies not to collaborate when they should compete.

Meanwhile, if the means of production are held by the collective (as an anarchist, I despise the idea of state control over the economy), at least you can ensure that people get paid a living wage and that the working conditions are safe; that the workers are fully informed about the value of their own labour, instead relying on a boss to break bread with other bosses to determine that value.

If you have anarchy, how will you enforce the rule that everything is held by the collective? What is keeping people from going off on their own and making a means of production they personally own?

That distopia you paint, of an employer unilaterally deciding on pay because you don't have other options, that's the lived reality right now for billions all over the world. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So since billions live with effectively one employment option, you want everyone else to only have one employment option? How is this an improvement for anyone?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Labour is not a free market.

See, this is the worst thing about those who believe capitalism is the best system: you once read a textbook on economics and think that, because you know what a supply and demand graph looks like, you have been granted arcane wisdom. It doesn't even go that deep, this knowledge, not taking into acount the difference between heterogeneous and homogeneous goods, or markets with high or low barriers to entry. No, you make supply and demand your ideology, while people who bothered to actually learn about inelastic demand try to inform you, and you keep throwing superior knowledge of economics into the wind.

Let me give you an insight, as a union man who has to deal with this shit every day. Employers only compete on pay when that is literally their only option left. They would rather make agreements with other employers for their mutual benefit, keeping wages low. They keep people in the dark as to their actual pay and punish severely for speaking out for better conditions. The only field that competes on pay is STEM and IT. Anything else, from desk jobs to physical labour, is relegated to the market of pure fear. Speaking up for better pay will get you replaced by one of the thousands of others looking for a job. See, you have forgotten that workers compete with one another too, and they have a lot more to lose. The price for not getting a job is homelesness, starvation, lack of medical care, and thus death.

And it is for that very reason I think it is the place of the state to compel companies not to collaborate when they should compete.

Meanwhile, if the means of production are held by the collective (as an anarchist, I despise the idea of state control over the economy), at least you can ensure that people get paid a living wage and that the working conditions are safe; that the workers are fully informed about the value of their own labour, instead relying on a boss to break bread with other bosses to determine that value.

If you have anarchy, how will you enforce the rule that everything is held by the collective? What is keeping people from going off on their own and making a means of production they personally own?

That distopia you paint, of an employer unilaterally deciding on pay because you don't have other options, that's the lived reality right now for billions all over the world. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

So since billions live with effectively one employment option, you want everyone else to only have one employment option? How is this an improvement for anyone?

You keep making retorts to anarchist points as if I were a Marxist-Leninist, and they don't land. Anarchism gives you more choice than you previously had.

If you have anarchy, so all hierarchies are voluntary and democratic, you won't need a government to enforce a 'rule' that everything is held by the collective. That will be the practical result. Ownership and private property (as opposed to personal property) are enforced by the state. The ownership over land you never visit or machines you never use yourself are fundamental to capitalism and enforced by capitalist states via police power. In an anarchical system, the land is 'owned' by the people who live there and the machines are 'owned' by the people who use them. Agreements can be made between various groups to ensure collaboration.

If someone has their own means of production, for example a machine they can't work themselves, how will they enforce that private property without a state to enforce it? Would any capitalist still own a factory if the police decided not to oppose collectivisation by the workers?

[Galiantus III]

And it is for that very reason I think it is the place of the state to compel companies not to collaborate when they should compete.


If you have anarchy, how will you enforce the rule that everything is held by the collective? What is keeping people from going off on their own and making a means of production they personally own?


So since billions live with effectively one employment option, you want everyone else to only have one employment option? How is this an improvement for anyone?

You keep making retorts to anarchist points as if I were a Marxist-Leninist, and they don't land. Anarchism gives you more choice than you previously had.

If you have anarchy, so all hierarchies are voluntary and democratic, you won't need a government to enforce a 'rule' that everything is held by the collective. That will be the practical result. Ownership and private property (as opposed to personal property) are enforced by the state. The ownership over land you never visit or machines you never use yourself are fundamental to capitalism and enforced by capitalist states via police power. In an anarchical system, the land is 'owned' by the people who live there and the machines are 'owned' by the people who use them. Agreements can be made between various groups to ensure collaboration.

If someone has their own means of production, for example a machine they can't work themselves, how will they enforce that private property without a state to enforce it? Would any capitalist still own a factory if the police decided not to oppose collectivisation by the workers?

Okay, then how do you enforce collective ownership of what used to be "private property"? Because if I make something, or if I make an agreement with someone and we trade, I don't want other people interfering with that. I'm going to fight it. And if you try and take what I labored for, even if I'm not currently using it under your definition of "personal property", I will fight back violently. This is why I reject your pseudo-anarchism. You don't actually support anarchy, because in order to enforce your philosophy you would have to form an army and forcibly take the things people produced under the assumption they could keep it. And once you establish that nothing a person produces can be kept as their property, why would anyone produce anything? You're just going to take it from them for your pet project. So you will either establish a totalitarian government or your society will ultimately collapse. Private property rights of some kind are essential for civilization to function.

Edit: You would also need a state just to enforce personal property. At the very least, your proposed society is based on some principle of property, which means there are some things which would be illegal to take without permission of the owner, and thus a law to enforce. So you can't say you are an anarchist, because your own philosophy requires some collaborative enforcement (a state) to implement.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You keep making retorts to anarchist points as if I were a Marxist-Leninist, and they don't land. Anarchism gives you more choice than you previously had.

If you have anarchy, so all hierarchies are voluntary and democratic, you won't need a government to enforce a 'rule' that everything is held by the collective. That will be the practical result. Ownership and private property (as opposed to personal property) are enforced by the state. The ownership over land you never visit or machines you never use yourself are fundamental to capitalism and enforced by capitalist states via police power. In an anarchical system, the land is 'owned' by the people who live there and the machines are 'owned' by the people who use them. Agreements can be made between various groups to ensure collaboration.

If someone has their own means of production, for example a machine they can't work themselves, how will they enforce that private property without a state to enforce it? Would any capitalist still own a factory if the police decided not to oppose collectivisation by the workers?

Okay, then how do you enforce collective ownership of what used to be "private property"? Because if I make something, or if I make an agreement with someone and we trade, I don't want other people interfering with that. I'm going to fight it. And if you try and take what I labored for, even if I'm not currently using it under your definition of "personal property", I will fight back violently. This is why I reject your pseudo-anarchism. You don't actually support anarchy, because in order to enforce your philosophy you would have to form an army and forcibly take the things people produced under the assumption they could keep it. And once you establish that nothing a person produces can be kept as their property, why would anyone produce anything? You're just going to take it from them for your pet project. So you will either establish a totalitarian government or your society will ultimately collapse. Property rights of some kind are essential for civilization to function.

Edit: You would also need a state just to enforce personal property. At the very least, your proposed society is based on some principle of property, which means there are some things which would be illegal to take without permission of the owner, and thus a law to enforce. So you can't say you are an anarchist, because your own philosophy requires some collaborative enforcement (a state) to implement.

Hey, don’t blame me for your lack of understanding of these concepts.

If anything, it is telling that the ‘totalitarian government’ you describe, wherein the product of people’s labour is taken away from them with threat of force for an arbitrary conception of property, already exists. That’s capitalism. Or did Elon Musk hand-make all those teslas?

Why would people give up what they produced? Why would they work at all? For the benefit of the community. Without money or a state (though like I said, some democratic voluntary hierarchy might be required) people can freely choose the occupation they love and share the fruits of that labour with others, which is its own reward. If housing and food are not dependent on income, you will be totally free. That’s not a law; that’s just how humans act when not forced to labour for basic necessities in meaningless bullshit jobs at the spreadsheet mines.

Why would a carpenter want to keep all the chairs they ever created? Or the field labourer keep the thousand potatoes they farmed?

[Galiantus III]

Okay, then how do you enforce collective ownership of what used to be "private property"? Because if I make something, or if I make an agreement with someone and we trade, I don't want other people interfering with that. I'm going to fight it. And if you try and take what I labored for, even if I'm not currently using it under your definition of "personal property", I will fight back violently. This is why I reject your pseudo-anarchism. You don't actually support anarchy, because in order to enforce your philosophy you would have to form an army and forcibly take the things people produced under the assumption they could keep it. And once you establish that nothing a person produces can be kept as their property, why would anyone produce anything? You're just going to take it from them for your pet project. So you will either establish a totalitarian government or your society will ultimately collapse. Property rights of some kind are essential for civilization to function.

Edit: You would also need a state just to enforce personal property. At the very least, your proposed society is based on some principle of property, which means there are some things which would be illegal to take without permission of the owner, and thus a law to enforce. So you can't say you are an anarchist, because your own philosophy requires some collaborative enforcement (a state) to implement.

Hey, don’t blame me for your lack of understanding of these concepts.

If anything, it is telling that the ‘totalitarian government’ you describe, wherein the product of people’s labour is taken away from them with threat of force for an arbitrary conception of property, already exists. That’s capitalism. Or did Elon Musk hand-make all those teslas?

Why would people give up what they produced? Why would they work at all? For the benefit of the community. Without money or a state (though like I said, some democratic voluntary hierarchy might be required) people can freely choose the occupation they love and share the fruits of that labour with others, which is its own reward. If housing and food are not dependent on income, you will be totally free. That’s not a law; that’s just how humans act when not forced to labour for basic necessities in meaningless bullshit jobs at the spreadsheet mines.

Why would a carpenter want to keep all the chairs they ever created? Or the field labourer keep the thousand potatoes they farmed?

Elon Musk paid people to make teslas for him, using machinery he bought. If Musk had no possibility of profit he would not have poured all that money into making teslas, and there would be no tesla factory. And therefore there would be no teslas for people to buy. This same logic applies to other products.

See, the reason people spend their time and energy making stuff is because they have some vision for it. They typically want it for themselves, or they want to exchange it for something they want more. And people often act simply out of a desire to help others with no reward in mind, but generally people are concerned about their own needs: The reason a carpenter makes chairs is because the field laborer said he'd trade potatoes for them, and the reason the field laborer digs up potatoes is because the carpenter said he'd trade chairs for them. People work to fulfill their own needs first, and rarely beyond that. The carpenter and field laborer are probably not workaholics. They want to spend time with their family and friends and do other things with their time. For them the point of life isn't their careers. Their careers are just a tool to enable them to do other things.

[HISPIDA]

Hey, don’t blame me for your lack of understanding of these concepts.

If anything, it is telling that the ‘totalitarian government’ you describe, wherein the product of people’s labour is taken away from them with threat of force for an arbitrary conception of property, already exists. That’s capitalism. Or did Elon Musk hand-make all those teslas?

Why would people give up what they produced? Why would they work at all? For the benefit of the community. Without money or a state (though like I said, some democratic voluntary hierarchy might be required) people can freely choose the occupation they love and share the fruits of that labour with others, which is its own reward. If housing and food are not dependent on income, you will be totally free. That’s not a law; that’s just how humans act when not forced to labour for basic necessities in meaningless bullshit jobs at the spreadsheet mines.

Why would a carpenter want to keep all the chairs they ever created? Or the field labourer keep the thousand potatoes they farmed?

Elon Musk paid people to make teslas for him, using machinery he bought. If Musk had no possibility of profit he would not have poured all that money into making teslas, and there would be no tesla factory. And therefore there would be no teslas for people to buy. This same logic applies to other products.

See, the reason people spend their time and energy making stuff is because they have some vision for it. They typically want it for themselves, or they want to exchange it for something they want more. And people often act simply out of a desire to help others with no reward in mind, but generally people are concerned about their own needs: The reason a carpenter makes chairs is because the field laborer said he'd trade potatoes for them, and the reason the field laborer digs up potatoes is because the carpenter said he'd trade chairs for them. People work to fulfill their own needs first, and rarely beyond that. The carpenter and field laborer are probably not workaholics. They want to spend time with their family and friends and do other things with their time. For them the point of life isn't their careers. Their careers are just a tool to enable them to do other things.

so here you miss the point

the idea that people have to trade their labor to get life needs is inherently flawed and oppressive. people shouldn't have to trade anything to have their needs fulfilled -- anything else is barbarism!

"from each according to to their abilities, to each according to their needs." it's not that hard to grasp.

[Galiantus III]

so here you miss the point

the idea that people have to trade their labor to get life needs is inherently flawed and oppressive. people shouldn't have to trade anything to have their needs fulfilled -- anything else is barbarism!

"from each according to to their abilities, to each according to their needs." it's not that hard to grasp.

"I shouldn't have to work! You should work and give me your stuff!"

That's socialism for you.

[Hidrandia]

This thread can be summarized as "I'm right, your wrong"

[HISPIDA]

so here you miss the point

the idea that people have to trade their labor to get life needs is inherently flawed and oppressive. people shouldn't have to trade anything to have their needs fulfilled -- anything else is barbarism!

"from each according to to their abilities, to each according to their needs." it's not that hard to grasp.

"I shouldn't have to work! You should work and give me your stuff!"

That's socialism for you.

*describes capitalism*
"that's socialism for you"
lmao ok

[Malaiya Union]

The European empires killed a lot of people, true, but on the other hand, communists did too, in a shorter period of time.

And fascists even more so, in an even shorter period of time.

Again, it can't be stressed enough that Hitler lost. Had he won he would easily systematically kill 100-150 million in a decade or so, probably even more. Disgusting.