A question for Anti-Capitalists....

[IMHO]

Sure, but the size of the political community does matter. If most important political decisions are being taken at the level of say 5000 people ...

Where, and why, are the boundaries drawn? If I live in Clapham, do you say that if I live in Brixton (a few yards away in many cases) the rules are different?

 

[fishfingerer]

I think the fact is that most people would drift about like farts in the breeze. In the current system, there are far more followers than leaders, because most people don't have the confidence, the vision, or the desire to lead. In a post-apololictic scenario, a few people would gravitate to organise, and the rest would follow. It's usually been that way.

In essence, I think that after a while in the wilderness, the strong will lead the meek.

Capitalism ... again

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Something like that?

 

[Julie]

Every community in the world would be run just like Ramsay Street, with punishments of the utmost severity for any deviationism.

That's more than punishment; that's sadistic.

 

[TAE]

Where, and why, are the boundaries drawn? If I live in Clapham, do you say that if I live in Brixton (a few yards away in many cases) the rules are different?

How would that be different from living near any other border (county/state/country/nation)?

 

[lewislewis]

I know. It was a joke - it was a famous banner that someone had at one of those anti capitalist May day demos. "Abolish capitalism and replace it with something nicer". I Agree, completely idiotic.

I know, it's just somebody else posted saying something along the lines of 'yes, something nicer, let's just leave it at that' which was the response I scorned.

 

[In Bloom]

Trouble is, one community may decide a different punishment from another community.

Sorry, why is that a problem, exactly?

 

[In Bloom]

Er, does Unison know about this?

 

[In Bloom]

I agree with you. The reason I've highlighted without hurting anyone is that some posters here consider employment ("working for a boss") to be exploitation. The old "surplus value" thing. I'd say that the employer is owed the surplus value for risking capital to produce something which, before initial release, may be worthless if insufficient people buy it. That's before we start talking about marketing costs and a whole array of other expenditure. BUt I'm not looking to derail the thread with a critique of Marxism.

I'd hope not, particularly one that has been discredited so many times that its laugable.

The "risk" argument totally ignores the fact that the richer you are, the less risk you are taking, if you're a multi-millionaire, there isn't much risk investing a million pounds in something, what have you lost?

I'm simply saying that a communal, free society should not exclude the choice of setting up as an employer, or the choice of working for an employer.

Indeed, but why would anybody want to work for an employer?

 

[In Bloom]

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight."

Something like that?

Oh spare us all the pointless fucking Hitler references

 

[Japey]

Indeed, but why would anybody want to work for an employer?

Imagine there's a large commune of a few thousand people where people have more or less enough to live on, but some people want more.
One person comes up with an idea for getting more resources (for sake of argument, starting a gold mine and trading the gold outside of the commune), but nobody is that interested because the work is risky, and the benefit of those resources split throughout the entire commune would be negligible.
So the guy goes off and does it by himself, and offers wages to anybody willing to join him.
It's no longer a communal enterprise, because the commune wasn't interested - but it was his idea, and he started and planned it all, - so is he entitled to employ people?

 

[In Bloom]

Imagine there's a large commune of a few thousand people where people have more or less enough to live on, but some people want more.
One person comes up with an idea for getting more resources (for sake of argument, starting a gold mine and trading the gold outside of the commune), but nobody is that interested because the work is risky, and the benefit of those resources split throughout the entire commune would be negligible.
So the guy goes off and does it by himself, and offers wages to anybody willing to join him.
It's no longer a communal enterprise, because the commune wasn't interested - but it was his idea, and he started and planned it all, - so is he entitled to employ people?

If he (and they) likes.

Good luck finding someone to trade gold with after capitalism has gone belly up though.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullyplumped
Er, does Unison know about this?

In Bloom

In Bloom, I'm sorry you were confused by my humorous response. If you recall I suggested that the post-revolutionary system of administration would require a lot of committees, and I'd asked, in a frivolous manner, who would take the minutes. The response was that the minutes would be taken by volunteers. I wondered if Unison, being the Trade Union representing the majority of local government staff involved in servicing committees, knew about this. I put in the smiley to denote the humorous intent behind my remark.

Are you a Unison Branch Officer by any chance? Any move following a post-revolutionary situation towards citizen administration involving unpaid volunteers would clearly present a significant threat to the living standards of your members and would require to be resisted by Unison and other public sector Unions with maximum vigour.

 

[fishfingerer]

Oh spare us all the pointless fucking Hitler references

Why? He's peddling the same pseudo darwinist twaddle, twaddle which is still attractive to certain mindsets and which would be used to justify all sorts of shenanigans in the event of a global economic collapse. Or maybe not.

 

[PrinceToad]

Personally, I'd just settle for the moment for more egalitarianism and public accountability in terms of ownership and control of capital.

 

[In Bloom]

Why? He's peddling the same pseudo darwinist twaddle, twaddle which is still attractive to certain mindsets and which would be used to justify all sorts of shenanigans in the event of a global economic collapse. Or maybe not.

Because it proves fuck all. Attack the argument (such as it is), not the person.

 

[In Bloom]

In Bloom, I'm sorry you were confused by my humorous response. If you recall I suggested that the post-revolutionary system of administration would require a lot of committees, and I'd asked, in a frivolous manner, who would take the minutes. The response was that the minutes would be taken by volunteers. I wondered if Unison, being the Trade Union representing the majority of local government staff involved in servicing committees, knew about this. I put in the smiley to denote the humorous intent behind my remark.

Are you a Unison Branch Officer by any chance? Any move following a post-revolutionary situation towards citizen administration involving unpaid volunteers would clearly present a significant threat to the living standards of your members and would require to be resisted by Unison and other public sector Unions with maximum vigour.

Oh sorry, gotcha

 

[fishfingerer]

Because it proves fuck all. Attack the argument (such as it is), not the person.

Very well, what will the bourgeoisie be doing while capitalism is collapsing? Or are we working on the presumption that they've all been liquidated and whatnot?

 

[In Bloom]

Very well, what will the bourgeoisie be doing while capitalism is collapsing? Or are we working on the presumption that they've all been liquidated and whatnot?

What has this got to do with what I said? Are you seriously suggesting that IMHO is a fascist? A silly, pompous pseud, maybe, but a fascist?

 

[fishfingerer]

Never mind that, what about my question.

 

[In Bloom]

Never mind that, what about my question.

Fairy snuff.

what will the bourgeoisie be doing while capitalism is collapsing?

Presumably what they always do in a crisis, supporting fascist coups, having people shot, etc. if history is anything to go by.

 

[fishfingerer]

Presumably what they always do in a crisis, supporting fascist coups, having people shot, etc. if history is anything to go by.

Yeah, bummer.

 

[IMHO]

How would that be different from living near any other border (county/state/country/nation)?

Uniformity of rules ensures fairness. I thought one reason for hating capitalism was "unfairness".

 

[IMHO]

Sorry, why is that a problem, exactly?

Uniformity of punishment = fairness. I thought unfairness was one of your probs with capitalism.

 

[IMHO]

The "risk" argument totally ignores the fact that the richer you are, the less risk you are taking, if you're a multi-millionaire, there isn't much risk investing a million pounds in something, what have you lost?

You've lost a million. No matter how rich a person, they won't risk money without adequate potential reward.

Indeed, but why would anybody want to work for an employer?

Because they can't be arsed to think for themselves.

 

[IMHO]

Why? He's peddling the same pseudo darwinist twaddle, twaddle which is still attractive to certain mindsets and which would be used to justify all sorts of shenanigans in the event of a global economic collapse. Or maybe not.

I was simply saying that, if you start with a level playing field, it won't stay level for long, because the hard workers, the intelligent, the motivated, the inspirers, will rise to the top -- and the people not so gifted will mainly welcome that. Call it Darwinist twaddle if you like. I call it observable reality.

 

[Fruitloop]

Call it Darwinist twaddle if you like

Thanks, will do.

 

[IMHO]

What has this got to do with what I said? Are you seriously suggesting that IMHO is a fascist? A silly, pompous pseud, maybe, but a fascist?

Perhaps you'd like to explain why I'm a silly, pompous pseud?

 

[IMHO]

Thanks, will do.

So you're seriously saying the playing field will remain level, all on ownsome? Do you believe in Father Christmas, too?

 

[Fruitloop]

I didn't say that. I said that:

if you start with a level playing field, it won't stay level for long, because the hard workers, the intelligent, the motivated, the inspirers, will rise to the top

is twaddle.

 

[IMHO]

I didn't say that. I said that:



is twaddle.

In almost every free society in history the able have risen to the top. Perhaps you should read some more history books. And then tell me why it wouldn't happen again.

It's no good saying back is white. You need to explain WHY black is white.