you're not dividing from zero. I'm not sure where far got that idea. the idea is to limit the gov't as much as possible, libertarian in an extreme form, and then divide the resources of the areas among the people that actually live in the area. Instead of a small minority benefiting from the resources (aka capitalism). And really you could have a pretty good society, very little crime, no homeless, jobless, hungry...its very possible and I'm sorry to see it not working in Venezuela.
you're not dividing from zero. I'm not sure where far got that idea.
I got that idea from Venezuela. Production continue to fall, shortages continue to rise.
the idea is to limit the gov't as much as possible, libertarian in an extreme form, and then divide the resources of the areas among the people that actually live in the area. Instead of a small minority benefiting from the resources (aka capitalism). And really you could have a pretty good society, very little crime, no homeless, jobless, hungry...its very possible and I'm sorry to see it not working in Venezuela.
Sigh...you are an idealist, I'll give you that.
You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not.
I got that idea from Venezuela. Production continue to fall, shortages continue to rise.
Sigh...you are an idealist, I'll give you that.
You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not.
I really dig Ron Paul. He's one of the few politicians anywhere that I'd vote for without qualms.
I didn't realize he was so well-schooled in economics. I was hoping you could infer his insight into your opinion of venezulea's economic agenda. I mean:
"You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not."
..don't you think there's bigger wheels at play here? At least venezulea can back it's "dollars" with a viable commodity/resource.
I didn't realize he was so well-schooled in economics. I was hoping you could infer his insight into your opinion of venezulea's economic agenda. I mean:
"You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not."
..don't you think there's bigger wheels at play here? At least venezulea can back it's "dollars" with a viable commodity.
Yes, there are bigger wheels at play here. I guess I'm struggling, however, to understand what you're asking.
Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck.
Yes, there are bigger wheels at play here. I guess I'm struggling, however, to understand what you're asking.
Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck.
Lol. You've got to be kidding me.
I won't argue economics with you, but you need to come up with something more substantial than these simplistic ascertations. That's why I lent you the Ron Paul link.
I won't argue economics with you, but you need to come up with something more substantial than these simplistic ascertations. That's why I lent you the Ron Paul link.
Hehe...are you asking me something or are you just critiquing my posts? If you, or others, want something more than assertations, you, or others, can go study economics. One of my posts or a ten minute youtube video isn't going to accomplish that. This is a message board, largely tailored for the posting of opinions. And since your post above is just a simplistic assertation, it fits right in.
Hehe...are you asking me something or are you just critiquing my posts? If you, or others, want something more than assertations, you, or others, can go study economics. One of my posts or a ten minute youtube video isn't going to accomplish that. This is a message board, largely tailored for the posting of opinions. And since your post above is just a simplistic assertation, it fits right in.
Well, like my misspelling, your assertation ascertained nothing.
Now, if you're looking for an explanation of this:
"Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck."
Now, if you're looking for an explanation of this:
"Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck."
Pay close attention to the first sentence in the book. But do read the rest.
Man, what a yawner.
And I find this observation demeaning, (not to mention false), to humans in general:
Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniences of life, for himself, or such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor that, from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts.
Talk about a broad over-generalization. What century was this written in?
Man, what a yawner.
And I find this observation demeaning, (not to mention false), to humans in general:
Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniences of life, for himself, or such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor that, from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts.
Talk about a broad over-generalization. What century was this written in?
You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
right, so that's is why you have to divide the labor up equally. I know you want no part of that, but I think there is a way to maximize labor and distribute it equally.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not.
Granted, without a centralized governing body and a monetary motive to push individuals, technological advancements will decline. But only at first. The individual will slowly start to put the community ahead of himself and the motivation for doing the things we do will revolve around making the community a better place for all, as opposed to getting rich.
We have the institutions in place in much of the world, ie corporations that can be used for the society. If they were to be democratized...
I was hoping Venezuela would lean this way, but Chavez got drunk with power, seems to always be the case...although he doesn't seem to making too much of a mess of the situation so far.
right, so that's is why you have to divide the labor up equally. I know you want no part of that, but I think there is a way to maximize labor and distribute it equally.
What way is that? If I assign you to design the next space shuttle, how are you going to do that?
Granted, without a centralized governing body and a monetary motive to push individuals, technological advancements will decline. But only at first. The individual will slowly start to put the community ahead of himself and the motivation for doing the things we do will revolve around making the community a better place for all, as opposed to getting rich.
The individual will not put the "community ahead of himself" so long as he or she has no good reason too. Self-interest is the driving force behind your existence. You can't just pretend it's not by declaring that by some magic it will change.
We have the institutions in place in much of the world, ie corporations that can be used for the society. If they were to be democratized...
What does that mean, "democratized"? Do you mean stolen? Do you mean commanded? Do you mean hijacked?
Corporations are already largely democratized. They represent the labor of their employees, the directions of their owners, and the desires of their customers. Furthermore, they must compete for all those things via exchange as opposed to force. The truly capitalistic corporation will serve the choices of the consuming public.
What you don't like is that those choices largely stand opposed to what you want. That doesn't mean they're not "democratized". It simply means they're not dictator-ized to your wishes.
I was hoping Venezuela would lean this way, but Chavez got drunk with power, seems to always be the case...although he doesn't seem to making too much of a mess of the situation so far.
Venezuela is leaning largely in the direction you want it to, you just can't see it. They're expropriating the labor of their best citizens and handing it out to their worst. So, naturally, those laborers are realizing they're getting the raw end of the deal. Competition is being eliminated, the labor simply assigned to those who may or may not be able to do it with no checks on their competence.
The infrastructure of the nation is quickly falling apart. The currency is being exposed for the worthless thing that it is without valuable labor to back it. People are leaving. Many that stay are sufferring from shortages of basic staples. The "community" you speak of is falling apart, not because someone is "drunk with power" but rather because the nation is drunk on a ridiculous belief that everything they desire in life can simply be ordered into existence.
What way is that? If I assign you to design the next space shuttle, how are you going to do that?
I'll be the last to sign up for a shuttle mission, man. A government built rocket ship with 10 million parts built by the lowest bidder. no thanks.
point taken though.
The individual will not put the "community ahead of himself" so long as he or she has no good reason too. Self-interest is the driving force behind your existence. You can't just pretend it's not by declaring that by some magic it will change.
I think we are taught this selfish tendency from day one, in our current society. Every media outlet, every textbook, every thing we hear or see from day one seems to be training us for the pursuit of individual pursuits, competition from day one, and forget the expense to others.
Under an anarcho-syndacalist structure, the individual will slowly realize the benefits of working for the community, seeing his efforts rewarded on an individual basis. What's good for the community us good for the individual type of thing. That concept and way of thinking is actually crucial in setting up a viable society, although not necessary to start one. It will slowly creep its way into the minds of the individuals...
What does that mean, "democratized"? Do you mean stolen? Do you mean commanded? Do you mean hijacked?
Corporations are already largely democratized. They represent the labor of their employees, the directions of their owners, and the desires of their customers. Furthermore, they must compete for all those things via exchange as opposed to force. The truly capitalistic corporation will serve the choices of the consuming public.
Actually corporations are fascist institutions, when you are working within one. There is little room for dissent and little imput from the majority in the day to day operations of the institution. It is run by a small group of individuals...deciding the day to day actions of the majority. In no stretch is it democratic.
Labor is not represented fairly, and does not see an equal share of the profits. If for some reason the emplyees decide to work harder one day, and produce more of x product, they don't see an increase in pay so really they have no incentive to work harder. Under a democratice structure the employees would have as much say in the operations of the institution as the CEO's, and so would see a percentage of the profits. So working harder and faster and longer days would actually benefit the individual, while benefiting the corporation at the same time.
What you don't like is that those choices largely stand opposed to what you want. That doesn't mean they're not "democratized". It simply means they're not dictator-ized to your wishes.
no, I'm simply asking for equality.
Venezuela is leaning largely in the direction you want it to, you just can't see it. They're expropriating the labor of their best citizens and handing it out to their worst. So, naturally, those laborers are realizing they're getting the raw end of the deal. Competition is being eliminated, the labor simply assigned to those who may or may not be able to do it with no checks on their competence.
The infrastructure of the nation is quickly falling apart. The currency is being exposed for the worthless thing that it is without valuable labor to back it. People are leaving. Many that stay are sufferring from shortages of basic staples. The "community" you speak of is falling apart, not because someone is "drunk with power" but rather because the nation is drunk on a ridiculous belief that everything they desire in life can simply be ordered into existence.
A strong centralized authority is nowhere to be found in an anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure. But that's what we're seeing in Venezuela, so its not a good example.
I think we are taught this selfish tendency from day one, in our current society. Every media outlet, every textbook, every thing we hear or see from day one seems to be training us for the pursuit of individual pursuits, competition from day one, and forget the expense to others.
There's a lot of validity here, and I certainly agree. That said, I think you're discounting a) the genetic factors (check out Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene") and b) the basic wills and desires of the individual man which are exactly that, individual.
Under an anarcho-syndacalist structure, the individual will slowly realize the benefits of working for the community, seeing his efforts rewarded on an individual basis. What's good for the community us good for the individual type of thing. That concept and way of thinking is actually crucial in setting up a viable society, although not necessary to start one. It will slowly creep its way into the minds of the individuals...
Here's the thing: there are wonderful justifications for altruism from the selfish perspective. Certainly we're all better off when we effectively work together as a society. However, socialism takes them too far and makes some really poor assumptions. First, it pretends that it's always in your best interest to subjugate yourself to society. This is tantamount to suggesting that you should tighten the noose around your own neck when the "public" decides you should hang. Secondly, there's a horrible contradiction that happens when we start to talk about the "will of the people" and the "common good" as if those are singular things. They aren't. Each is the measure of individual will and individual good within a group.
What people fail to recognize is that the "altruism justified by selfishness" is a primary part of the capitalistic system. Each of us sacrifices in our jobs, our families, our friends and our neighbors in the hopes of creating a better life for ourselves. Furthermore, within a capitalistic structure you have the right to determine those sacrifices, avoiding the contradiction of individual/social will and individual/social good. That's a double-edged sword, however, because that means a central planner (you, for example) can't simply tell someone what their will is or what's good for them.
Actually corporations are fascist institutions, when you are working within one. There is little room for dissent and little imput from the majority in the day to day operations of the institution. It is run by a small group of individuals...deciding the day to day actions of the majority. In no stretch is it democratic.
That's silly. There's plenty of room for dissent -- quit. In Venezuela right now, no one can just quit the schemes of the fascist government unless they literally leave the country. Within capitalism, you can quit a fascist corporation by just staying home or withholding your money from them.
Labor is not represented fairly, and does not see an equal share of the profits. If for some reason the emplyees decide to work harder one day, and produce more of x product, they don't see an increase in pay so really they have no incentive to work harder. Under a democratice structure the employees would have as much say in the operations of the institution as the CEO's, and so would see a percentage of the profits. So working harder and faster and longer days would actually benefit the individual, while benefiting the corporation at the same time.
Again, this depends on the corporation. In many, labor is represented fairly or to a greater extent than management. Profits are often shared. Working "harder and faster" always benefits the employee because it increases the value of the money in his pocket.
no, I'm simply asking for equality.
No offense, but you're really not. You're asking for a false equality wherein unequal things are treated equally. Under your system, the genius will be treated like an average, and the fool will be treated like an average. The man who invents the car will be treated like the man who drives one. The woman who runs a mile in 4 minutes will be treated like the man who walks one in 20. That's not equality. That's fundamentally prejudicial.
A strong centralized authority is nowhere to be found in an anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure. But that's what we're seeing in Venezuela, so its not a good example.
This is very true, but I can't think of any example of "anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure" outside of hunter-gatherer societies.
There's a lot of validity here, and I certainly agree. That said, I think you're discounting a) the genetic factors (check out Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene") and b) the basic wills and desires of the individual man which are exactly that, individual.
I'll have to check that out...
Here's the thing: there are wonderful justifications for altruism from the selfish perspective. Certainly we're all better off when we effectively work together as a society. However, socialism takes them too far and makes some really poor assumptions. First, it pretends that it's always in your best interest to subjugate yourself to society. This is tantamount to suggesting that you should tighten the noose around your own neck when the "public" decides you should hang. Secondly, there's a horrible contradiction that happens when we start to talk about the "will of the people" and the "common good" as if those are singular things. They aren't. Each is the measure of individual will and individual good within a group.
What people fail to recognize is that the "altruism justified by selfishness" is a primary part of the capitalistic system. Each of us sacrifices in our jobs, our families, our friends and our neighbors in the hopes of creating a better life for ourselves. Furthermore, within a capitalistic structure you have the right to determine those sacrifices, avoiding the contradiction of individual/social will and individual/social good. That's a double-edged sword, however, because that means a central planner (you, for example) can't simply tell someone what their will is or what's good for them.
Actually man, I agree with a lot of this. But I'm not talking about subjugating yourself to anything, or anyone, as opposed to the current structure, where we have to rent ourselves to the market with the hopes that some corporation might hire us. And subjugate ourselves to our representatives, a top-down hierarchy. For me its about personal freedom, at the core of which lies democratic control over ones productive life. We spend a serious part of our lives in the workplace, and how can we call ourselves a free society when we have no real input on the decisions in that environment? How can we even consider ourselves to be democratic? As it stands, the repersentative democracy in the US is limited to the political arena, I would like to move that into the economic arenas as well.
That's silly. There's plenty of room for dissent -- quit. In Venezuela right now, no one can just quit the schemes of the fascist government unless they literally leave the country. Within capitalism, you can quit a fascist corporation by just staying home or withholding your money from them.
Again, this depends on the corporation. In many, labor is represented fairly or to a greater extent than management. Profits are often shared. Working "harder and faster" always benefits the employee because it increases the value of the money in his pocket.
No offense, but you're really not. You're asking for a false equality wherein unequal things are treated equally. Under your system, the genius will be treated like an average, and the fool will be treated like an average. The man who invents the car will be treated like the man who drives one. The woman who runs a mile in 4 minutes will be treated like the man who walks one in 20. That's not equality. That's fundamentally prejudicial.
Again, Venezuela is not representative of a true anarcho-syndacalist structure. I'm not endorsing it by any means.
As to the equality of the citizens, well...recognition of your peers is something everyone strives for, whether they are willing to admit that or not. And an anarcho-syndicalist structure does not elminate or try to deny that aspect of human nature. The person that invents a car or some new technolgy will have gained the recognition of his peers, as he will have accomplished something great for everyone. Celebrities will be born this way, not through films or whatever. In this way technolgy will be a high priority for the society, as people will want that recognition, that celebrity status.
This is very true, but I can't think of any example of "anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure" outside of hunter-gatherer societies.
"A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish revolution of 1936, in which, over most of Republican Spain, there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside, looks spontaneous. Though, in fact, if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment, thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial -- though not totally pre-industrial -- society.
And that, again, was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe. And in fact, you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the brief period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. " -Noam chomsky.
As to the equality of the citizens, well...recognition of your peers is something everyone strives for, whether they are willing to admit that or not. And an anarcho-syndicalist structure does not elminate or try to deny that aspect of human nature. The person that invents a car or some new technolgy will have gained the recognition of his peers, as he will have accomplished something great for everyone. Celebrities will be born this way, not through films or whatever. In this way technolgy will be a high priority for the society, as people will want that recognition, that celebrity status.
See, here's the thing. "Recognition" isn't what I seek, and it isn't what a lot of people seek within an economic sphere. I can't eat recognition. I can't drink it. It doesn't entertain me. It doesn't make my life easier. I can't use it for anything I value. I couldn't care less if someone "recognizes" my labor. What I seek is an exchange of labor, and if all you have to offer me is "recognition", you'll have to steal my labor if you want any part of it. Now, if you labor in such a way that you produce something I value, then we can talk about exchange.
So how does your liberty fit in here? Where's my liberty if all you'll give me for my labor is something I don't want?
"A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish revolution of 1936, in which, over most of Republican Spain, there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside, looks spontaneous. Though, in fact, if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment, thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial -- though not totally pre-industrial -- society.
And that, again, was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe. And in fact, you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the brief period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. " -Noam chomsky.
Hehe...a US takeover in Latin America resulting in a few thousand deaths, to Chomsky, is a "holocaust". Meanwhile, an "anarchist revolution" that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides is "inspiring".
Anywho, I have a hard time calling a 5 year revolution a society. Yes, anarchists and republicans in Spain collectivized some farms, and saw some brief success, but this can hardly count as anything approaching a stable or lasting society.
There's a lot of validity here, and I certainly agree. That said, I think you're discounting a) the genetic factors (check out Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene") and b) the basic wills and desires of the individual man which are exactly that, individual.
The argument in the Selfish Gene is that the gene is unit of natural selection, not the organism. Looking at survival of the fittest at this level allows more appreciation of altruism as a genetic factor which is discussed extensively throughout the book.
The argument in the Selfish Gene is that the gene is unit of natural selection, not the organism. Looking at survival of the fittest at this level allows more appreciation of altruism as a genetic factor which is discussed extensively throughout the book.
Umm...my point was from the genetic perspective, not the from the organism.
Funny, I've been meaning to mention that I can't think of any example of "voluntary" or no taxation structures this side of precolumbian america.
Try postcolumbian, pre-civil war America for one example.
Umm...my point was from the genetic perspective, not the from the organism.
Don't let me put words in your mouth, but it seems to me your point was the genetic influence on the organism, and you refered Commy to a book. It seems to me you presented the book as a support to your implication that genetic factors cause selfishness. I was pointing out that the book argues, probably more, that genetic factors have led to altruism.
I'll believe Chavez when I see it. He wouldn't be the first guy to run good game and then do the exact opposite.
"Almost all those politicians took money from Enron, and there they are holding hearings. That's like O.J. Simpson getting in the Rae Carruth jury pool." -- Charles Barkley
Hopefully this guy can be as super awesome as folks like Che, Castro, Mao, Stalin, Illlll..... Lets hope that this particular philosophy finally after two dozen tries, works out here.
Even with the best intentions and leadership, this particular philosophy will always be undermined and under attack by the powers that want so badly for it to fail.
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Comments
you're not dividing from zero. I'm not sure where far got that idea. the idea is to limit the gov't as much as possible, libertarian in an extreme form, and then divide the resources of the areas among the people that actually live in the area. Instead of a small minority benefiting from the resources (aka capitalism). And really you could have a pretty good society, very little crime, no homeless, jobless, hungry...its very possible and I'm sorry to see it not working in Venezuela.
I got that idea from Venezuela. Production continue to fall, shortages continue to rise.
Sigh...you are an idealist, I'll give you that.
You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I really dig Ron Paul. He's one of the few politicians anywhere that I'd vote for without qualms.
EDIT: This went too far as an endorsement. I'd have some qualms about voting for Ron Paul. But not a lot.
I didn't realize he was so well-schooled in economics. I was hoping you could infer his insight into your opinion of venezulea's economic agenda. I mean:
"You cannot divide the resources equally among people in a civilized society defined by unequal labor without institutional force. It simply cannot be done Commy.
Your desire for a bizarre combination of small government coupled with equal wealth distribution really only has one possible outcome: a society of hunter-gatherers with little to no technology or specialization. There it would be possible. Here, or in Venezuela, it is not."
..don't you think there's bigger wheels at play here? At least venezulea can back it's "dollars" with a viable commodity/resource.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Yes, there are bigger wheels at play here. I guess I'm struggling, however, to understand what you're asking.
Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck.
I won't argue economics with you, but you need to come up with something more substantial than these simplistic ascertations. That's why I lent you the Ron Paul link.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Hehe...are you asking me something or are you just critiquing my posts? If you, or others, want something more than assertations, you, or others, can go study economics. One of my posts or a ten minute youtube video isn't going to accomplish that. This is a message board, largely tailored for the posting of opinions. And since your post above is just a simplistic assertation, it fits right in.
Well, like my misspelling, your assertation ascertained nothing.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Thank you, Mr. Ombudsman.
Now, if you're looking for an explanation of this:
"Venezuela's viable commodity is worthless while it's sitting in the ground or on the beach. And since their economic structure largely demands that it sit there, I don't think they'll have much luck."
You can find it here:
http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html
Pay close attention to the first sentence in the book. But do read the rest.
And I find this observation demeaning, (not to mention false), to humans in general:
Among the savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employed in useful labour, and endeavours to provide, as well as he can, the necessaries and conveniences of life, for himself, or such of his family or tribe as are either too old, or too young, or too infirm to go a hunting and fishing. Such nations, however, are so miserably poor that, from mere want, they are frequently reduced, or, at least, think themselves reduced, to the necessity sometimes of directly destroying, and sometimes of abandoning their infants, their old people, and those afflicted with lingering diseases, to perish with hunger, or to be devoured by wild beasts.
Talk about a broad over-generalization. What century was this written in?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
What am I, your research assistant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith
(I guess so.....)
right, so that's is why you have to divide the labor up equally. I know you want no part of that, but I think there is a way to maximize labor and distribute it equally. Granted, without a centralized governing body and a monetary motive to push individuals, technological advancements will decline. But only at first. The individual will slowly start to put the community ahead of himself and the motivation for doing the things we do will revolve around making the community a better place for all, as opposed to getting rich.
We have the institutions in place in much of the world, ie corporations that can be used for the society. If they were to be democratized...
I was hoping Venezuela would lean this way, but Chavez got drunk with power, seems to always be the case...although he doesn't seem to making too much of a mess of the situation so far.
What way is that? If I assign you to design the next space shuttle, how are you going to do that?
The individual will not put the "community ahead of himself" so long as he or she has no good reason too. Self-interest is the driving force behind your existence. You can't just pretend it's not by declaring that by some magic it will change.
What does that mean, "democratized"? Do you mean stolen? Do you mean commanded? Do you mean hijacked?
Corporations are already largely democratized. They represent the labor of their employees, the directions of their owners, and the desires of their customers. Furthermore, they must compete for all those things via exchange as opposed to force. The truly capitalistic corporation will serve the choices of the consuming public.
What you don't like is that those choices largely stand opposed to what you want. That doesn't mean they're not "democratized". It simply means they're not dictator-ized to your wishes.
Venezuela is leaning largely in the direction you want it to, you just can't see it. They're expropriating the labor of their best citizens and handing it out to their worst. So, naturally, those laborers are realizing they're getting the raw end of the deal. Competition is being eliminated, the labor simply assigned to those who may or may not be able to do it with no checks on their competence.
The infrastructure of the nation is quickly falling apart. The currency is being exposed for the worthless thing that it is without valuable labor to back it. People are leaving. Many that stay are sufferring from shortages of basic staples. The "community" you speak of is falling apart, not because someone is "drunk with power" but rather because the nation is drunk on a ridiculous belief that everything they desire in life can simply be ordered into existence.
I'll be the last to sign up for a shuttle mission, man. A government built rocket ship with 10 million parts built by the lowest bidder. no thanks.
point taken though.
I think we are taught this selfish tendency from day one, in our current society. Every media outlet, every textbook, every thing we hear or see from day one seems to be training us for the pursuit of individual pursuits, competition from day one, and forget the expense to others.
Under an anarcho-syndacalist structure, the individual will slowly realize the benefits of working for the community, seeing his efforts rewarded on an individual basis. What's good for the community us good for the individual type of thing. That concept and way of thinking is actually crucial in setting up a viable society, although not necessary to start one. It will slowly creep its way into the minds of the individuals...
Actually corporations are fascist institutions, when you are working within one. There is little room for dissent and little imput from the majority in the day to day operations of the institution. It is run by a small group of individuals...deciding the day to day actions of the majority. In no stretch is it democratic.
Labor is not represented fairly, and does not see an equal share of the profits. If for some reason the emplyees decide to work harder one day, and produce more of x product, they don't see an increase in pay so really they have no incentive to work harder. Under a democratice structure the employees would have as much say in the operations of the institution as the CEO's, and so would see a percentage of the profits. So working harder and faster and longer days would actually benefit the individual, while benefiting the corporation at the same time.
no, I'm simply asking for equality.
A strong centralized authority is nowhere to be found in an anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure. But that's what we're seeing in Venezuela, so its not a good example.
There's a lot of validity here, and I certainly agree. That said, I think you're discounting a) the genetic factors (check out Richard Dawkin's book "The Selfish Gene") and b) the basic wills and desires of the individual man which are exactly that, individual.
Here's the thing: there are wonderful justifications for altruism from the selfish perspective. Certainly we're all better off when we effectively work together as a society. However, socialism takes them too far and makes some really poor assumptions. First, it pretends that it's always in your best interest to subjugate yourself to society. This is tantamount to suggesting that you should tighten the noose around your own neck when the "public" decides you should hang. Secondly, there's a horrible contradiction that happens when we start to talk about the "will of the people" and the "common good" as if those are singular things. They aren't. Each is the measure of individual will and individual good within a group.
What people fail to recognize is that the "altruism justified by selfishness" is a primary part of the capitalistic system. Each of us sacrifices in our jobs, our families, our friends and our neighbors in the hopes of creating a better life for ourselves. Furthermore, within a capitalistic structure you have the right to determine those sacrifices, avoiding the contradiction of individual/social will and individual/social good. That's a double-edged sword, however, because that means a central planner (you, for example) can't simply tell someone what their will is or what's good for them.
That's silly. There's plenty of room for dissent -- quit. In Venezuela right now, no one can just quit the schemes of the fascist government unless they literally leave the country. Within capitalism, you can quit a fascist corporation by just staying home or withholding your money from them.
Again, this depends on the corporation. In many, labor is represented fairly or to a greater extent than management. Profits are often shared. Working "harder and faster" always benefits the employee because it increases the value of the money in his pocket.
No offense, but you're really not. You're asking for a false equality wherein unequal things are treated equally. Under your system, the genius will be treated like an average, and the fool will be treated like an average. The man who invents the car will be treated like the man who drives one. The woman who runs a mile in 4 minutes will be treated like the man who walks one in 20. That's not equality. That's fundamentally prejudicial.
This is very true, but I can't think of any example of "anarcho-syndacalist/libertarian-socialist structure" outside of hunter-gatherer societies.
Actually man, I agree with a lot of this. But I'm not talking about subjugating yourself to anything, or anyone, as opposed to the current structure, where we have to rent ourselves to the market with the hopes that some corporation might hire us. And subjugate ourselves to our representatives, a top-down hierarchy. For me its about personal freedom, at the core of which lies democratic control over ones productive life. We spend a serious part of our lives in the workplace, and how can we call ourselves a free society when we have no real input on the decisions in that environment? How can we even consider ourselves to be democratic? As it stands, the repersentative democracy in the US is limited to the political arena, I would like to move that into the economic arenas as well. Again, Venezuela is not representative of a true anarcho-syndacalist structure. I'm not endorsing it by any means.
As to the equality of the citizens, well...recognition of your peers is something everyone strives for, whether they are willing to admit that or not. And an anarcho-syndicalist structure does not elminate or try to deny that aspect of human nature. The person that invents a car or some new technolgy will have gained the recognition of his peers, as he will have accomplished something great for everyone. Celebrities will be born this way, not through films or whatever. In this way technolgy will be a high priority for the society, as people will want that recognition, that celebrity status.
"A good example of a really large-scale anarchist revolution -- in fact the best example to my knowledge -- is the Spanish revolution of 1936, in which, over most of Republican Spain, there was a quite inspiring anarchist revolution that involved both industry and agriculture over substantial areas, developed in a way which to the outside, looks spontaneous. Though, in fact, if you look at the roots of it, you discover that it was based on some three generations of experiment, thought and work which extended anarchist ideas to very large parts of the population in this largely pre-industrial -- though not totally pre-industrial -- society.
And that, again, was, by both human measures and indeed anyone's economic measures, quite successful. That is, production continued effectively; workers in farms and factories proved quite capable of managing their affairs without coercion from above, contrary to what lots of socialists, communists, liberals and others wanted to believe. And in fact, you can't tell what would have happened. That anarchist revolution was simply destroyed by force, but during the brief period in which it was alive I think it was a highly successful and, as I say, in many ways a very inspiring testimony to the ability of poor working people to organize and manage their own affairs, extremely successfully, without coercion and control. " -Noam chomsky.
See, here's the thing. "Recognition" isn't what I seek, and it isn't what a lot of people seek within an economic sphere. I can't eat recognition. I can't drink it. It doesn't entertain me. It doesn't make my life easier. I can't use it for anything I value. I couldn't care less if someone "recognizes" my labor. What I seek is an exchange of labor, and if all you have to offer me is "recognition", you'll have to steal my labor if you want any part of it. Now, if you labor in such a way that you produce something I value, then we can talk about exchange.
So how does your liberty fit in here? Where's my liberty if all you'll give me for my labor is something I don't want?
Hehe...a US takeover in Latin America resulting in a few thousand deaths, to Chomsky, is a "holocaust". Meanwhile, an "anarchist revolution" that results in hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides is "inspiring".
Anywho, I have a hard time calling a 5 year revolution a society. Yes, anarchists and republicans in Spain collectivized some farms, and saw some brief success, but this can hardly count as anything approaching a stable or lasting society.
The argument in the Selfish Gene is that the gene is unit of natural selection, not the organism. Looking at survival of the fittest at this level allows more appreciation of altruism as a genetic factor which is discussed extensively throughout the book.
Funny, I've been meaning to mention that I can't think of any example of "voluntary" or no taxation structures this side of precolumbian america.
1) Quit saying the word "gringo".
2) Lose weight.
3) Quit being such a stupid asshole and actually act like a so-called socialist.
Umm...my point was from the genetic perspective, not the from the organism.
Try postcolumbian, pre-civil war America for one example.
Don't let me put words in your mouth, but it seems to me your point was the genetic influence on the organism, and you refered Commy to a book. It seems to me you presented the book as a support to your implication that genetic factors cause selfishness. I was pointing out that the book argues, probably more, that genetic factors have led to altruism.
Poll Taxes, import and export duties, and property taxes, were being collected during this time.
you're assuming that the people building this thing have no incentive to build it properly so people won't die. Very uneducated view.
it was a line from a movie man. straight from steve bushemi in Armageddon.
Even with the best intentions and leadership, this particular philosophy will always be undermined and under attack by the powers that want so badly for it to fail.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde