Anarchism vs. Communism: Ramo's Opportunity

[Fake Boris]

First thing before I wet my toe: to Ramo, with some terrific posts.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich
People pay more for more valuable labor. That and patent laws.

Not exactly. Human beings being what they are, capitalist societies tend to establish a dictatorship of the means of production.

Basically, means of production survive humans, get split between an insane number of shareholders, and become uber-entities per se, attracting man by virtue of its accumulated power and wealth. When this happens, we start to forget that 'corporations' are an extension of property rights, but are truly nothing in themselves. They tend to form a 'predominant' discourse within society, for the natural consolidation process of power, becomes part of the free market dynamics.

The result of this is Corporations with free speech rights, corporations ruling the political block, etc. The predominant discourse generated by 'free market', historically, is the one with the most potential (because its imperative legiferates in the field of WORK-ACTING, the process by which the physis becomes a social order): it can go as far as to overcome religion and make morality subject of its rule.

Humans all have the necessary psychological dispositions to absorb the predominant discourse and perpetuate it. It results in an 'unnatural man', whose sense of value has been tainted by the centuries-long heritage that capitalism has brought to culture.

In truth, humans only pay for what they are told is worth something at their birth. Why do we buy cell phones in stores, while in fact we could be buying medication for the needy of the third world (that the clerk would take care to send for you)? Can you claim that the former has intrinsically more value than the latter?

See: social influences determine values extrinsically, and capitalism is by far the most competent system at doing this.

[M'sieur Baise]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris See: social influences determine values extrinsically, and capitalism is by far the most competent system at doing this.

10/10

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by M'sieur Baise
10/10

Mok?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Mok?

Why? you disagree?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kucinich

And here, it is whether daddy is rich.

Not really, no. Look at someone like Bill Gates. America is a country where geniuses can make obscene amounts of money

BIll gates Sr was actually a very prominent lawyer.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Wrong. Sharing as a "good" thing to do is a religious concept. Our political consept is that sharing is a "normal" and "productive" thing to do, that is not related with individual choice, exactly the same way taxes in current capitalist countries are not related with individual choice.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kucinich


Ever heard of welfare? If you can choose any "capitalism" as an example, then I can point out the Soviet Union as "communism", and it was headed, no matter what, towards totalitarianism (your bull**** about "oh the poor guys just got ganged up on" being just that), so communism is totalitarian. See?

This would make you a social-democrat who believes that capitalism requires that the produce of the means of production should be redistributed.

In other words, you are agreeing that the workers should get a compensation for the disappearance of communal property. More precisely, you are conceding that ownership of the means of production is not an absolute right, but a conditional one. Which in turn means that you are only opposing the anarchists and communists on how it should be done, not on whether or not it should be.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kucinich
Ever heard of welfare?

Welfare recipients must actively seek employment, and take work that is offered. Only capitalists get to sponge off of the system.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Why? you disagree?

No, I expected him to be somebody I know, since I spoke highly of 'Poly to several French friends. I had my friend Mok on the phone recently (he occasionaly lurks, but is not even registered), and he isn't the one.

[Kidlicious]

Boris 2,

Someone used a double login (DL), because they don't want anyone to know they agree with what you said. You should be flattered.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Spiffor

No, I expected him to be somebody I know, since I spoke highly of 'Poly to several French friends. I had my friend Mok on the phone recently (he occasionaly lurks, but is not even registered), and he isn't the one.

Oh, I thought you had misspelled 'mock'!

M'Sieur Baise is someone I know, who has registered because I suggested him to.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MRT144


BIll gates Sr was actually a very prominent lawyer.

Was?

[Kuciwalker]

Basically, means of production survive humans, get split between an insane number of shareholders, and become uber-entities per se, attracting man by virtue of its accumulated power and wealth. When this happens, we start to forget that 'corporations' are an extension of property rights, but are truly nothing in themselves. They tend to form a 'predominant' discourse within society, for the natural consolidation process of power, becomes part of the free market dynamics.

Maybe you start to forget it. A corporation is NEVER more than an extension of property rights - it is made up of people. The corporation has no mind of its own. The people who own the corporation can decide to divert some of the funds from their property into politics, just like any person can divert some of their own funds. When a corporation does it, it's just a bunch of people acting in concert.

The result of this is Corporations with free speech rights, corporations ruling the political block, etc. The predominant discourse generated by 'free market', historically, is the one with the most potential (because its imperative legiferates in the field of WORK-ACTING, the process by which the physis becomes a social order): it can go as far as to overcome religion and make morality subject of its rule.

Humans all have the necessary psychological dispositions to absorb the predominant discourse and perpetuate it. It results in an 'unnatural man', whose sense of value has been tainted by the centuries-long heritage that capitalism has brought to culture.

In truth, humans only pay for what they are told is worth something at their birth. Why do we buy cell phones in stores, while in fact we could be buying medication for the needy of the third world (that the clerk would take care to send for you)? Can you claim that the former has intrinsically more value than the latter?

Who cares about "intrinsically"? I have a choice between a) buying a nice shiny new computer or b) feeding some poor African person. I happen to enjoy the nice shiny new computer more than feeding the poor African person, so I buy the computer.

See: social influences determine values extrinsically, and capitalism is by far the most competent system at doing this.

NO ONE gets their values internally. People are taught these values. (The only exception is when there are certain biological tendencies of human beings to form certain values, but even then this is not evidence of some fundamental truth but rather evolution.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This would make you a social-democrat who believes that capitalism requires that the produce of the means of production should be redistributed.

Who said "should"? My view here is purely utilitarian: some form of welfare help capitalism run more smoothly.

I think I need to explain my viewpoint on capitalism a bit further, for comments like that to really make sense. In my mind, I make an analogy to computing: you can have an algorithm to solve a problem, or you can use a neural net, or a genetic algorithm, or some other form of bottom-up programming. Those systems are inherently superior because they do not depend on the reliability of some top-down rule (which is less a problem in computing than IRL, because IRL you have actual people), but approach or even reach the optimum solution with no direction at all (and sometimes no top-down algorithm is possible). The problem is that in some cases, a statistically large sample size and/or time period is required to reach a solution (evolution is an example of a real-world system like this). Thus, limited "tinkering" with the system can make it reach the near-optimal solution MUCH faster. Welfare is an example of this tinkering, as is government funding of research.

In other words, you are agreeing that the workers should get a compensation for the disappearance of communal property. More precisely, you are conceding that ownership of the means of production is not an absolute right, but a conditional one. Which in turn means that you are only opposing the anarchists and communists on how it should be done, not on whether or not it should be.

Of course I don't believe in "absolute" rights. I'm not DF. I think the draft is OK, the censorship during a World War is OK, that the income tax is OK. I'm much more in agreement with Mill: the object is to maximize liberty.